Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [15 October],

That the Lords amendment be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 24 October at Seven o'clock.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Monday 22 October at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 25 October.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 25 October.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL ( By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 25 October.

SHARD BRIDGE BILL ( By Order)

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Mr. Speaker: As the remaining private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL
(By Order)

SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL
[Lords] (By Order)

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY
POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 October.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of

Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Docklands Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the London Underground Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;


That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Wednesday 24 October at Seven o'clock.

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, AUSTRALIA, AND MENLEY & JAMES, AUSTRALIA BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Smith Kline &amp; French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley &amp; James, Australia Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any Committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matters which arise during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Bait Breeding

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about bait breeding.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): My Department has been in regular contact with the British Bait Breeders Association and individual bait breeders about a European Community directive on the disposal of animal waste.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister recall writing to me in July and admitting that the then most recent draft of the European Community proposal would, on the face of it, prohibit bait breeding and therefore reduce the opportunity of many anglers to participate in their favourite sport? Has not the overcentralisation of the Common Market reached a ridulous stage when the Eurocrats are not only attempting to dictate the value of sterling but dictating to ordinary anglers what they can or cannot use to catch fish?

Mr. Curry: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the proposed directive now provides specifically for bait breeders to continue their activities unaltered. That is proof of the success of the Government's difficult negotiations in Brussels. As the hon. Gentleman said, this proposal will be welcomed by millions of British anglers who enjoy the most popular sport in this country.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will not the proposed directive pose particular problems for the British knacker industry? Can the Minister confirm that a considerable burden will be imposed on the British livestock industry and the British slaughtering industry if the directive goes through in its present form? Can he tell us precisely what action he intends to take to safeguard fundamental and vital British interests?

Mr. Curry: The directive was discussed again just two days ago in Luxemburg. As the hon. Gentleman said, the present draft is unsatisfactory in relation to knackers. It would require the trade to cease in 1995. We have said that that is unsatisfactory and have succeeded in getting the document referred for further discussion. We will do our best to get a provision for that trade to continue. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of the trade, but I do not wish to mislead him by suggesting that it will be an easy battle. The system is unique to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and it will be extremely difficult to achieve its continuation, but we are determined to fight that battle to the best of our ability.

Pesticides

Dr. Marek: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of pesticides on agricultural land.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The use of pesticides on land is tightly controlled under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

Dr. Marek: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that that glib statement is nowhere near good enough? Will he take a leaf out of the Minister's book and rely on scientific evidence, and take into careful consideration the British Medical Association's paper and its harsh criticism of the Ministry? Will he abandon his cheap jibes and admit that there is nothing wrong with natural food? Will he admit that what is required is a lessening of pesticides, especially in affected water catchment areas, and thorough consultation with everyone interested in the matter?

Mr. Maclean: There is nothing wrong with any food if it is treated properly. That applies both to natural food and to food that has been treated with pesticides. If the hon. Gentleman bothers to read the report on pesticide residues that we published a couple of weeks ago, he will see that we are among the best in Europe in having the lowest pesticide residues. On the BMA report, the House should be told—if the hon. Gentleman knows—why some of the few scientists on the committee dissociated themselves from part of the report or resigned from the committee. I note that some other members were representatives of or spokesmen for Friends of the Earth and one was one of Mr. Ron Todd's men.

Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he wants to restrict the use of pesticides on farm land, one of the quickest ways would be to make an urgent and substantial increase in environmentally sensitive areas, where the use of pesticides is restricted? At the same time, he would be doing something to help the most urgent and dramatic crisis that is hitting our upland areas, about which I hope that he will do something very soon.

Mr. Maclean: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for having the nous and good sense to introduce environmentally sensitive areas when he did. They are an outstanding achievement and we are committed to reviewing their success in the future. However, I must point out to my right hon. Friend that pesticide use in this country has declined since this Government came to power. We are proud of that achievement, and also of the fact that we stress optimum and best use of pesticides—not maximum use.

Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that this country has some of the most stringent and intensive tests of pesticides and releases more data about them than most other countries do? Is not it in the best interests both of agriculture and of the environment to emphasise the need for the continued development of new pesticides which can be more selectively and effectively targeted?

Mr. Maclean: I was surprised to see that the BMA report, which I have here, calls for more information and less secrecy. Has no one told the BMA that we swept away the last vestiges of secrecy surrounding pesticide data when my right hon. Friend the Minister made his announcement a few months ago? The report also calls for regulation. Has no one told the BMA that regulation is now under some of the toughest statutory controls in the world, which were introduced in 1985?

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister reconsider his rather intemperate reference to Friends of the Earth? Does he not accept that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, while not adding to the comfort of the Government, have exposed many serious problems in the British environment?

Mr. Maclean: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I have a great deal of respect for the work of Friends of the Earth. I was merely making the point that we should not get the impression that the BMA report was produced by top academic experts. The committee contained people who were not medically qualified, but who were spokesmen for Friends of the Earth. That is perfectly legitimate, but let us not pretend that all those who produced the report were academic experts.

Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that there is considerable public anxiety about pesticides, and that the anxiety is heightened by the BMA report? The Minister's complacent answer this afternoon did not help matters. Will he confirm that 41 per cent. of the pesticides currently in use were approved before 1966, and that even with the Government's speeded-up programme it will take a further 15 years to review those pesticides? Will he further confirm that it is currently taking an average of four years to get approvals for new pesticides and that firms such as ICI and Shell have had only one or zero approvals since they made their applications in 1986?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain about the time that it takes to review pesticides and simultaneously complain that because we and the companies making the pesticides are so thorough it takes a long time to develop a new pesticide. If there is the slightest question mark over any pesticide, it is automatically brought forward instantly for review. We are prioritising the review of all pesticides so that those in the top category will be reviewed speedily.

Meat Pies

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meat pies have been eaten since 28 June.

Mr. Maclean: The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not available.

Mr. Banks: That is a great pity. Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine, who is a regular eater of that great British institution the lukewarm meat pie, has become very concerned because, having eaten a number of them recently, the world has been dropping out of his bottom. He wants me to ask the Minister what checks are carried out to ensure that the unfit meat, of which there is a great deal circulating in London and elsewhere, or meat from BSE-infected cattle, is not going into meat pies. My constituent is worried and I do not want to see my constituents dying off—I cannot afford it.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry that I was not able to provide the hon. Gentleman with a good line because his wit has been failing of late. However, I can assure him that all meat, as confirmed by the chief medical officer, whether it is in meat pies, sausages or sirloin steak, is perfectly safe to eat, and his constituents have nothing to fear from BSE. We deplore the fact that some unscrupulous or crooked


people may be putting unfit meat from knackers' yards into the meat trade. That is despicable and we will take all possible action to crack down on it. However, that is primarily a job for the local authority enforcement officers who are in charge of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman should contact his local authority to ensure that they are spending a fair share of the extra £30 million that we are providing for enforcement.

Mr. Boscawen: Does my hon. Friend realise that a serious issue lies behind that question, and that is the weakening of confidence in the quality of British meat production? People should at all times try to enhance public confidence in the British livestock industry and the safety of its products, or the situation may become disastrous.

Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely. Many hon. Members will remember that disgraceful night when all were in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister when he returned from Brussels—except those on the Labour Front Bench, who were condemned by all parties in the House for trying to resurrect a BSE scare and to hype up a situation to scare the British people. That was despicable then and if they are still at it, it is despicable now.

Animal Welfare

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of veterinarians in promoting animal welfare.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The promotion of animal welfare is central to the duties of all vets and they take an oath to that effect.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is it not a fact that under the Government the number of vets employed by the Ministry has dropped by about 27 per cent? Is not it also true that, because of BSE, veterinary staff have had to be diverted from welfare visits? When will the Government take the issue of animal welfare seriously and recruit sufficient vets to do the job properly?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must first accept that all vets, whether employed by my Department or anywhere else, must, by their vow, put animal welfare high on the list of their activities. Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that two veterinary colleges that had been suggested independently for closure, were saved after the matter was reviewed. Thirdly, I hope that he will point out that I have been the progenitor of a major campaign for a code of animal welfare for the EC. The Government are the first to have sought for the EC the same high standards, or higher, as we have in Britain. Britain leads the EC in animal welfare and the Government are determined to ensure that we care about all animals in the EC, not just those in Britain.

Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the concerns expressed by many vets about the conditions in which live animals are transported for slaughter, sometimes throughout the European Community. Will he reassure the House and members of the British Veterinary Association who work in that area that the Government will not settle for any watered-down European Commission directive that will weaken the standards that we are seeking to set?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to interfere with the judicial review that is taking place at the moment. In general, however, with regard to our present and future policy, we want to ensure that there are high standards for the transport of live animals in every country of the European Community so that animals receive the kind of respect that they should and are properly watered, rested and have lairages of the kind that we would expect in this country; that should apply not only in the northern countries but throughout the European Community.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that not only has there been a 27 per cent. cut in the number of vets in his Department, but there is an increasing shortage of vets and environmental health officers throughout the country just when food safety legislation and increasing moves towards European harmonisation mean that there should be more of them? When will the Government ensure that there are enough vets to meet those demands so that animal welfare does not suffer?

Mr. Gummer: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. In dealing with this matter, in which he has a great personal interest, the hon. Gentleman will probably find that the Government have accepted the main recommendation of the Page committee to remove the ceiling on intakes at veterinary schools. The Universities Funding Council is considering bids for increased student places put forward by the six schools. We are therefore doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman would want us to do, even though some independent advice in the past suggested that we should not do that. We have decided that we need more vets and we shall continue in that view.
We are also consulting on the possible extension of the role of veterinary nurses and laypersons to relieve some of the burdens on qualified veterinary surgeons. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman would agree with our view in the European Community that it does not help if we spread to vets repetitive and basic jobs which could be performed by other people, thus relieving vets for the jobs that they should be doing.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's concern about environmental health officers, I hope that he will notice the extra £30 million of resources to local authorities for that purpose.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the major bars to increasing the number of animals exported on the hook rather than on the hoof is the lack of abattoirs that are up to European Community standards? Are there any plans to provide additional support from national or European funds to bring the abattoirs up to that standard?

Mr. Gummer: If that were so, my hon. Friend would have a case. However, there is a demand for live animals rather than animals exported on the hook. So long as the animals are properly exported, in proper conditions and with proper protections, that must be possible within the Community.

Research Spending

Mr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he expects to spend in the current year on agriculture and food research at current prices.

Mr. Gummer: My Department plans to spend £100 million on research and development in the areas of agriculture and food in this current year.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister acknowledge the important contribution made by Government-funded agricultural research in the huge increases in self-sufficiency achieved by the industry in the past 20 years? Does he recognise that when it comes to some of the modern health and environmental problems of intensive agriculture, Government-funded research, as opposed to commercially-funded research, is more important then ever? Against that background, is it not time that the Government reversed their policy of cutting agricultural research, as the Minister knows not only that the figure that he announced this afternoon is less in real terms than what the Government spent last year but that the Government have cut spending by 30 per cent. in the past 10 years?

Mr. Gummer: I agree entirely with the purpose of Government spending in this matter. We are spending the necessary money on the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am not prepared to spend money on matters that should be paid for by those who will get immediate commercial results from it. The industry should pay that. I am paying money for food safety, food protection and the development of less harmful pesticides, for example—the kinds of things that we can use to improve the environment. All those things have a public interest, such as medium and long-term research. That is what I should be spending money on. In those matters I have been able to increase our spending. That seems to be a proper use of Government money.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend spend a small amount of the money that he has allocated for research on behalf of small arable farmers and growers who feel that the five major supermarkets in this country are using their dominant position to repress the prices of horticultural products to the detriment of farmers, with a particular view to referring the results to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for consideration?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure whether that would be a proper use of our research money. If my hon. Friend is concerned about particular points, I shall certainly look at them and see whether action is required.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister conduct an urgent inquiry into the widespread use of the flavour enhancer, monosodium glutamate? Clear evidence is now coming forward that it produces severe allergies in people who eat meat pies and processed foods as well as in those who eat in restaurants. Is the Minister aware that the symptoms not only include the condition described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) but can lead to severe dizziness and loss of memory? This matter is now reaching proportions which must be urgently investigated, and I hope that that will be done.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that, if there is any concern about this matter, we can ask the committee on toxicity to look at it. I am very ready to take any information that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else has on this matter. The way in which we operate is to take all information and look at it immediately. I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me know.

British Coal (Waste Dumping)

Mr. Holt: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider the practice of issuing licences to British Coal permitting the dumping of waste products on beaches on the north-east coast; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: British Coal has been told that no licence for the dumping of minestone on beaches will be issued after June 1995 unless it can show that there is absolutely no viable alternative.

Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will, of course, have read carefully the Government's recent White Paper on the environment, and he will also have studied the paper put out by the Labour party. He will have noticed that, despite its claims to having specific details, the Labour party has nowhere stated how it will deal with the problem in the north-east of England. Will my hon. Friend accept that although the Government appear to have a five-year commitment, my hon. Friend's statement is loose and open-ended and does not commend itself to the people of the north-east of England? We want the Government not merely to state that they might elongate the period but to shorten it to three years, two years, or even one year. The problem can be resolved by British Coal without detriment to the environment and it is time that the Government did something solid about the issue.

Mr. Curry: That was precisely the purpose of my decision. British Coal has to find an alternative, get it through the planning procedures and then implement it. I want to make sure that local people and local bodies are involved in that process through the planning decision. That takes a certain amount of time. It is better to get the right solution than to force British Coal to act so quickly that it has a plausible claim that it has not been given adequate time to do the job.
That illustrates precisely that environmental problems are not easy. We have a choice between dumping waste on the beach, in the sea or down a hole, or building a tip, none of which is an easy option—showing, if I may so put it, that green issues are not black and white.

Mr. Cummings: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) for raising this vexatious problem. Is the Minister aware that four collieries remain in my constituency in Durham and provide about 6,000 much-needed jobs? Is the Minister aware also that those four collieries have contributed substantially to the overall performance of British Coal? If the Minister intends to review licences in future, will he ensure that there is close liaison between himself and the Department of Energy so that no further extra costs fall on British Coal and perhaps jeopardise pits, jobs and communities in the north-east?

Mr. Curry: I of course recognise that the hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned because of his constituents' interest in the matter. The Department of Energy was associated with my decision. We observe the principle that the polluter pays and British Coal must therefore bear the costs of the exercise. British Coal must also decide the future of those pits on their merits; that is not for my Department. The object is to address a difficult dilemma and to address the issue that has been highlighted as being central, which is the fact that it is no longer desirable or acceptable to put waste on the beaches or out at sea, as I said earlier. I shall certainly keep the hon. Gentleman informed of developments, because I recognise his interest in the matter.

Free Food

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the further distribution of European Economic Community free food in 1990.

Mr. Curry: Distributions of butter and beef by more than 400 designated organisations are now getting underway.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of pensioners in my constituency, in Bradford generally and elsewhere feel humiliated and angry that they have queued, often for more than an hour at a time, to try to obtain free butter or free meat only to find that because they are not on family credit or income support, they are refused it? As, in a letter to me, the Minister relied on European legislation as being the culprit, will the Government stand up to the Common Market if those are its stringent rules or are the Government hiding under the cloak of EEC legislation? As we have paid more than £14 billion to the Common Market since 1980 is not it time that the Government stood up to the Common Market and allowed people, many of whom fought in the war for this country, to have part of this free handout?

Mr. Curry: If 3,000 tonnes of beef and 3,000 tonnes of butter were distributed among all pensioners, they would get precious little each. Furthermore, a certain number of pensioners might be sufficiently well off not to need that—some of them might be Members of the House.

Mr. Latham: Is not there something absolutely asinine about a situation in which farmers are now experiencing extremely difficult conditions, but we apparently have surpluses that can be given away free?

Mr. Curry: It is true that the sensible approach to the problem is to ensure that we bring our production closer to demand and our costs closer to the marketplace, and that is the policy we have pursued. We have always objected to the scheme because it seems a particularly inefficient way of tackling the problem. If one does not identify the problem correctly, which is to get the pricing structure right, how can one reach the right solution?

Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the great disappointment and distress felt in areas of high unemployment such as Northern Ireland because of the restrictive nature of the entitlement to EC free food? Will he assure the House that he will do all in his power to change that, so that those who are technically not on

income support or any other benefit do not lose out on the benefit of free EC food to which they should be entitled and of which they are in great need?

Mr. Curry: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall do our best to ensure that those who are entitled to the free food have access to it. That is why the number of organisations involved has more than tripled this year to more than 400. However, I am not prepared to say that the scheme should be opened more generally to all pensioners, because that would be grotesquely inefficient. It seems plain common sense that the free food should be directed to those who are most in need and we shall seek to maintain that that is the case if we have to maintain the scheme at all, which I profoundly hope that we shall not.

Mr. Knapman: Have there been any distributions of surplus free food in socialist countries?

Mr. Curry: I understand that certain countries in the European Community that would describe themselves as Social Democratic have done so. However, the problem in eastern Europe is the queues of people trying to get into the supermarkets, not the queues of people trying to get out.

Animal Welfare

Mr. Moss: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he has taken to improve animal welfare throughout the European Community.

Mr. Gummer: I am pressing for the adoption of comprehensive Community rules setting high welfare standards for animals on farms, during transport and at slaughter.

Mr. Moss: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the positive lead that he is taking on this issue in the European Community. Does he agree with the vast majority of the British public that the conduct of some French farmers of late is entirely unacceptable? Will he take action to ensure that our high standards on animal welfare, particularly on the live transportation of animals, become the benchmark of any future European Community legislation?

Mr. Gummer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that I have received further assurances from the French Government about the continuance of cases against people who indulge in those appalling acts. I am sure that he would also want us to raise our standards in those few areas in which we do not reach the highest, and then ensure that the whole of Europe continues to improve its standards, as it ought, as intra-Community trade increases.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister have a word with the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) about what is happening on Islay and the way in which, for commercial reasons, A and C Sporting Services is apparently being allowed to conduct the slaughter of the rare white-fronted Greenland goose? It is a European scandal.

Mr. Gummer: I am responsible for many things, but the white-fronted Greenland goose is not one of them. I am perfectly happy to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary


of State for the Environment to look into the matter. In so far as it is my responsibility or that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I shall see that attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks at once.

Dame Janet Fookes: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that there are adequate numbers of inspectors and adequate enforcement procedures, without which the welfare regulations will not be worth the paper on which they are written?

Mr. Gummer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not possible to have effective welfare regulations unless they are properly enforced. One thing that we seek to do in the European Community is to ensure that countries that claim to meet high standards can show that they are doing so by having proper inspectors and proper enforcement. Indeed, we are having discussions with the Commission about several countries. We shall make sure that at the end of them we are much happier about enforcement of the present rules in those countries. We also want to improve the rules considerably.

Mr. Skinner: Is it true that the Minister is looking into the possibility of sending a fact-finding tour of Members of Parliament to Greenland in the winter to look after the Greenland goose? Or is it that he cannot find enough people because they are all on fact-finding tours between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn? Why does not he send one there instead?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that a fact-finding tour in Greenland would be helpful on this occasion. I promise the hon. Gentleman that if I send a tour to Greenland, he will have first option for a place on it and it will be at a time of year to suit his convenience and personal bodily comfort.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the impact of the single European market on the United Kingdom dairy industry.

Mr. Curry: I have received representations from a wide range of organisations covering issues such as possible changes to the milk marketing arrangements, the future operation of the milk quota system, and the Commission's proposals for Communitywide milk hygiene standards.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply on that point. Could he comment further on the future of the Milk Marketing Board after 1992?

Mr. Curry: The Milk Marketing Board started the debate about its future because it believes that the present system is unsatisfactory. The Government have never concealed that they believe that a statutory monopoly, which is locked into a negotiating structure with a single buying organisation, no longer serves the best interests of farmers, consumers or the ability of the dairy trade to compete in the wider European market. An increasing number of people echo that. The formula must be sorted out by the Milk Marketing Board itself.

Mr. Geraint Howells: When the Minister discussed the European single market, what representations were made to him that the agriculture industry is going through the

worst recession since the war? Can he confirm or deny that his Government are backing a 30 per cent. cut in the support system for agriculture? If they are, why are they hell bent on destroying the agriculture industry, which has helped consumers so well over the past 50 years?

Mr. Curry: Because the Government take the clear view that, first, it is in the interests of the welfare of the whole of the Community. Secondly, it is clearly in the interests of the United Kingdom and European farmers that we should take the lead and control the negotiations rather than fail dismally to formulate proposals, as Agriculture Ministers have done recently, as that would allow those who would like to see a much more draconian attack upon our system to prevail in the negotiations. Our position is the only sensible one and the only one which properly defends the interests of our farmers and continental farmers.

Mr. Marland: As the United Kingdom has such a high standard of milk production and hygiene, can my hon. Friend assure the House that after 1992 all other European countries will be required to come up to our standards?

Mr. Curry: I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposals before us mean that countries whose current standards are not as good as our own will come up to those standards. The United Kingdom has already achieved the standards that will be demanded under those proposals.

Scottish Fishing Industry

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet representatives of the catching sector of the Scottish fishery industry; and what assistance he is making available to that sector.

Mr. Curry: My noble Friend the Minister responsible for Scottish agriculture and fisheries regularly meets the Scottish fishing industry. I shall meet its representatives if they so desire.

Mr. Salmond: If the Minister arranges such a meeting, will he attempt to explain to the industry's representatives why the Government have cancelled Export Credits Guarantee Department cover, which affects trade with the Soviet Union on the herring and mackerel fleets? Does the Minister agree that the Government look quite absurd when the Prime Minister claims at international conferences that trade with the Soviet Union should be developed while her own Departments are sabotaging the existing trade? When will the Minister start to assist the Scottish fishing industry and stop sabotaging its prospects?

Mr. Curry: The future of the ECGD is not a matter for my Department. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that what will actually happen is that the Klondiking fleets will no longer appear off British coasts. It is not so much a problem of ECGD cover, but the obsolescence and the necessary radical restructuring of the fleets of eastern Europe after a generation of wholly inefficient socialist governments.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Is my hon. Friend aware that some discontent has been expressed at the achievements in the activities of the sea fishing industry? Does he believe that if achievements in those activities cannot be realised, it is time to reconsider the levy system?

Mr. Curry: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Sea Fish Industry Authority has submitted proposals for an increase in the levy. Before I take any decision on that, I shall review carefully the industry's opinion expressed to me. I shall want to be satisfied that the Sea Fish Industry Authority has a clear idea about what it exists to do and that it is acting efficiently.

Livestock Exports

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the numbers of livestock being exported live from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Maclean: The following figures cover exports from the United Kingdom of farm livestock and horses for all purposes during the period January to August 1990 inclusive: cattle 175,975; sheep 295,928; pigs 79,114; goats 107 and horses 3,845.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that under article 36 of the treaty of Rome he is empowered to take steps to stop the export of live animals from this country if he is satisfied that that action is necessary to protect the health and life of those animals? Given the shocking scenes that we have seen of brutal mistreatment of British animals by rioting French farmers, is not it time that he took steps to bring the international trade in live animals to a halt?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that matter is subject to judicial review today in the High Court. I cannot comment further on it.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend expect to see those figures increased one day by the export of live horses for slaughter and consumption on the continent, or is he confident that we have the power to stop those new European regulations coming into effect?

Mr. Maclean: Like everyone in the House, we sincerely hope not. We have had some extremely tough negotiations on the matter and we have made it plain that we support the minimum values principles, which are very good rules and have stood us in long stead. We shall continue fighting so that British horses are not exported live for slaughter and human consumption on the continent.

Eastern Europe

Mr. Burt: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help his Department has given to farmers in eastern Europe.

Mr. Gummer: I have undertaken a series of visits to east and central European countries and have taken other initiatives to promote United Kingdom trade co-operation on the transfer of appropriate technology.

Mr. Burt: I am delighted to learn of the extent of help that we are giving. Bearing in mind the track record of socialist agriculture, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best advice that this country can give is to echo the words of the new Polish Member of Parliament who is the chairman of that country's privatisation committee and who said in this country last week that socialism cannot be improved but must be removed?

Mr. Gummer: Anybody who thinks that centralised control, direction by the state and the fixing of norms, all

of which are policies upheld by the Labour party in this country, do any good had better try to get a square meal in any of the eastern European countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Butterfill: Has my right hon. Friend found time in her busy day today to read the report of the Audit Commission on managing sickness absence in London? If so, does she share my concern that socialist authorities in London are tolerating sickness absence of two and a half times the average in local authorities elsewhere and that that is costing their community charge payers an estimated £27 a head?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I have seen the Audit Commission's report and have noted what my hon. Friend said, that is, that absentee levels in certain local authorities are nearly three times those in private industry and that some of those local authorities are not even aware of what the absentee levels are, let alone able to take any action about it. That is grossly unfair to the charge payer and once more proves that Labour authorities are totally inadequate from the point of view of financial control.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to everyone today that she is completely against vouchers for schooling?

The Prime Minister: We have an introduction of vouchers for training. That is very good because it increases choice. In education we are attempting to increase choice—in city technology colleges, in grant-maintained schools and with open rolls. Of course, local authorities are against choice. They want central controls. They do not want opportunity, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman is against choice and against vouchers anywhere.

Mr. Kinnock: Even though the right hon. Lady is trying to evade, it is obvious from what she said last week and from what she just said that she is in favour of vouchers for schooling. The Prime Minister is a crank—[Interruption.] Is not it obvious to her that every examination ever undertaken into vouchers, including that done by her noble Friend Lord Joseph, has concluded that vouchers are an expensive, bureaucratic, divisive system entirely irrelevant to the real needs of schooling?

The Prime Minister: Nonsense—[Interruption.] Nonsense. They are one, and only one, method of what we are already operating; the money follows the pupil. That is a form of giving extra choice and of giving the voucher to the parent for the pupil. Of course the right hon. Gentleman hates it. He wants total central control of education through socialist, Labour authorities that hold money back from locally managed schools. Of course he


hates choice. Of course he hates higher standards. Of course he hates opportunity. He is socialist—a crypto-communist. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: It is a long time since we had quite such a tantrum from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. Everyone knows that the British education system is now more centralised than it has ever been. Everyone also knows that the Prime Minister has spent the past 11 years making a complete mess of education. Why does she not now start concentrating on the things that need to be done to help education, and stop chasing after the things that can only hurt education?

The Prime Minister: On the contrary, with city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and locally managed schools we are totally and utterly decentralising power and responsibility away from the local education authorities to the parents. That is what the right hon. Gentleman objects to. In the meantime, let me point out to him that, during the stewardship of the Conservative Government, expenditure per pupil in education has increased from £515 to £1,360—an increase of 41 per cent. According to an OECD report quoted in The Sunday Times last week, when it comes to the percentage of our national income per head spent on education, Britain has a higher percentage than the United States, Japan or Germany.

Mr. Burt: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Burt: Bearing in mind the previous exchange, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has seen news reports today about a head teacher who describes himself as
a former knee-jerk anti-Tory
chap, and who now runs a successful grant-maintained school in the north of England that takes its pupils from nearby council estates. Does she believe that the aspirations of those parents and children will be fulfilled by any big idea that threatens to destroy their choice and opportunity in grant-maintained schools?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, as usual, is absolutely spot on. The money goes directly to the grant-maintained schools—into the classroom and not into the local education authority administration.
Head teachers of grant-maintained schools find them extremely good. There have been a number of comments about them recently—the head of Bankfield school in Cheshire, for instance, has said:
18 months ago I had serious reservations about the applications for grant-maintained status—not now. For me seeing and experiencing has been believing.
Another in Northampton said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is answering a question.

The Prime Minister: Another head teacher, from Hendon, said:
We have more time to deal with educational issues as opposed to administration and coping with bureaucracy.
That is another example of a head teacher satisfied with a grant-maintained school. A third said:

We are finding it easier to recruit staff.
Of course the right hon. Gentleman does not like that, because it means more staff and less bureaucracy; however, the schools are good.

Mr. Ashdown: Given the Prime Minister's previous answers, why does she disagree with her own Secretary of State for Education and Science, who said over the weekend that he felt that the introduction of education vouchers would be an unnecessary distraction from the real task—putting right what was wrong with Britain's failing education system?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sitting next to me, and disagrees totally with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what he said. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said earlier, he would have realised that city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and, to some extent, open enrolment are a form of choice for parents. If we add to that the money following the pupil, it is virtually a voucher system.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of inviting in the head of Twyford high school in Ealing, Hazel Hardy, the head of Lilian Baylis school in Waterloo and Peter Dawson, who used to be the headmaster of Eltham Green school in my constituency and get them to explain how it is that, with the opportunity of attracting pupils to their schools, they have managed to make the schools attractive to ethnic minorities and poor families and to provide the type of education that the Leader of the Opposition received in Wales? More families at the bottom need choice, and with my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, we expect to see more of it.

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Choice is for the overwhelming majority of those who go to the public system of education. That is why we are extending it. That is why we have grant-maintained schools, which are independent state schools and that is why we are giving more choice to parents, knowing full well that they will use it to go to the school that offers the highest standards of education. More choice means better standards and more opportunity.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister give any explanation why the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) remains convinced that it was the Foreign Secretary who suggested that he make the visit to Iraq, although I am aware that the latter has strongly denied that? What is the Prime Minister's own view about the forthcoming trip, bearing it in mind that, we hope, some sick and elderly British hostages will be released—people who should never have been taken hostage in the first place? Indeed, no one should have been taken hostage.

The Prime Minister: Of course people should never have been taken hostage in the first place. That is why we are all at one in the House in insisting that the United Nations resolutions must be upheld, and insisting that every day that the hostages are held is a fresh offence and


act of war. As far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is concerned, he will make his own best judgments. If he decides to visit Iraq, or any other country, he will of course be given the normal courtesies. Similar facilities were available for those Opposition Members who visited Iraq recently.

Mr. Marland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marland: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the recent confession by Mr. Herman Ouesley, the chief executive of Labour-controlled Lambeth council, who laments that no final accounts have been prepared in Lambeth since 1985 and that 40,000 community charge bills have not been sent out? He also laments what he describes as "corruption" in the administration system and says that the financial situation is near catastrophic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that reflects the flavour of a possible future Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw the report in the Local Government Chronicle to the effect that Lambeth had not finalised its accounts since about 1985, which is an utter disgrace for any local authority. I think that the chief executive was very critical about it. That is typical of Labour's financial management, typical of the way that their last Government handled the nation's affairs, and typical of the way in which Labour authorities carry on, and it is very adverse to community charge payers and the services that they receive.

Mr. Galloway: As the Prime Minister knows, there is an election next week in Pakistan. Does she accept that there is now a real fear in Pakistan that, having failed to find a legal case against Benazir Bhutto and, largely thanks to President Bush, having failed to have the elections called off, Miss Bhutto's enemies may have concluded that the only way to stop her becoming Prime Minister again is to kill her? Will the Prime Minister make it clear today that

Britain expects next Thursday's election in Pakistan to be free and fair? Will she ask her ambassador in Islamabad to convey to the Pakistani authorities her concern for the life of Benazir Bhutto?

The Prime Minister: When the high commissioner of Pakistan came to see me yesterday, because his period of accreditation to this country is over, I raised the matter with him. I said that we all expected those elections to be fully free and fair and that we shall watch carefully to see whether they are free and fair. We are aware of all the concerns about them.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recently announced rents-to-mortgages scheme will bring the reality of home ownership to many thousands of families who never believed that that option would be available to them? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that, rather than being an irrelevant scheme, as it has been described by the Labour party, it will be so successful that in the end the Labour party will claim that it was its own idea?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the original right-to-buy scheme has enabled about 1·5 million council tenants to purchase their homes. There are some who are still unable, under that scheme, to take the plunge but who would like to purchase their homes. In Scotland and Wales, therefore, we have run a pilot scheme on rents to mortgages. A number of people have taken advantage of it. We intend to run a pilot scheme in England for new-town houses to find out whether the scheme would also be welcomed here, with a view, if it succeeds, to extending it much more widely in order to enable another group of people to enjoy the benefits of home ownership, which they would never have got from the Labour party.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Bill and the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to the proposal for a European company statute. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 23 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the exchange rate mechanism, on a Government motion.
Motion on the British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) Order 1990.
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Motions relating to European Standing Committees, European Community legislation and parliamentary questions.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to the extension of EC aid to other countries of central and eastern Europe. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER—Progress on consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Broadcasting Bill.
FRIDAY 26 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords].
Completion of consideration of any Lords amendments to the Broadcasting Bill.
MONDAY 29 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Environmental Protection Bill.

[Monday 22 October 1990

Relevant European Community Document
8404/89 European Company statute

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 15-xxxv (1988–89), para 2.
Wednesday 24 October 1990
Relevant European Community Document
7720/90 Aid to Eastern Europe
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 11-xxxi (1989–90), para 5]

Dr. Cunningham: Can the House expect a statement next week from the Foreign Secretary when he returns from his important visit to the middle east? Since that visit involved discussions about the situation in Israel and the Palestinians and also about the grave situation in the Gulf, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to come to Parliament as soon as possible to report on his talks?
May we also have an assurance that the Secretary of State for Social Security will make an oral statement next week about the Government's plans for the uprating of benefits? That decision will have important consequences

for millions of British families. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to question the Secretary of State about his proposals.
May I also ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his unusual decision to timetable the consideration of Lords amendments to the Broadcasting Bill on Friday and to make it the second business for that day? It is unacceptable that legislation that is so important and at the same time so controversial should be timetabled for Friday rather than for a normal full sitting day of the House. The legislation raises important questions, which do not necessarily reflect simply party political divisions. I hope that on reconsideration that business can be taken on another day.
Will the Leader of the House urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to reconsider her decision to duck out of the debate on Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism? The Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, has primary responsibility for Government economic policy. Is not it strange that, on the most important economic decision of the moment, the Prime Minister is running away from a debate in the House? The right hon. Lady already has the worst record in recent memory of any Prime Minister for attending debates in the House. Why is she running away from this issue? Is it that she is unwilling to face not only Labour party opposition, but searching questions from her own party on her U-turn, or is it that she no longer has any stomach for the fight?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that his colleague, the Opposition Chief Whip, raised with me on Monday the issue of a statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As I said then, I shall convey his request to my right hon. Friend on his return to this country.
I note the request that the hon. Gentleman makes about a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The House will be informed in due course, and I shall tell my right hon. Friend that the matter has been raised.
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman raised his third point, but I cannot accept his contention that Friday should not be regarded as a proper parliamentary day. The House will appreciate that it is necessary at this stage to make progress on all these matters. Obviously, I hope that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed through the usual channels as we have already laid them out. Progress along the lines I have suggested will be important and make sense if we are to achieve the equally sensible objective of Parliament being prorogued in the week commencing 29 October.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made the announcement about entry into the exchange rate mechanism, as is proper, will prove to be much more than a match for the Leader of the Opposition. If the hon. Gentleman's point is to be taken seriously, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked about this in the House on Tuesday and she can be asked about it next Tuesday. It is interesting that no Opposition Member asked about it this afternoon.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what progress he is making on the parliamentary pensions Bill?


I ask that question as one of the trustees of the fund. We have twice had the matter down for debate but nothing concrete has yet transpired.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter in the absence of the chairman of the trustees. As my hon. Friend knows, the current position is that there have been lengthy discussions with the trustees about the package of changes involved in the Ministerial and Other Offices (Pensions and Salaries) Bill and in the regulations associated with it. I have been seeking all along to respond sympathetically to the various concerns expressed in the debate on 17 January this year and subsequently. I have been happy to accommodate the trustees' request for further time to consider the proposals. I shall be meeting the trustees again next week. In consequence of that, I do not now expect to make further progress with the Bill in what remains of this Session, but I shall seek to do so as speedily as possible in the new Session.

Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall that, during the recess, Mr. David Calcutt came forward with his report on the Colin Wallace case. He observed that Ministry of Defence officials had seen the chairman of the appeal tribunal before which Mr. Wallace was to appear and he believed that that had influenced the outcome of the appeal. Given such serious allegations, surely one would expect that we would have had a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence this week. At the very least, can we expect a statement next week or, better still, a debate on this important issue which simply will not go away?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government have accepted the conclusion and recommendation made by Mr. David Calcutt in his report, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) about the matter on 13 September. A copy of that letter is in the Library of the House.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister will join me in expressing heartfelt sympathy to the family of my constituent, Stephen Craig, who was murdered by the IRA on Tuesday evening, and to the relatives of the other victim, a Roman Catholic, who was murdered the same evening. May we have time to debate the slaughter of the innocents in Northern Ireland as a matter of urgency, because it is high time that that slaughter was brought to an end, in the interests of all people in the Province whatever their religious or political beliefs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will agree with the objective stated at the end of that question, but I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate on this important matter. Both murders are the subject of a full police investigation. Several people are helping the police with their inquiries into the murder of the police dog handler, Samuel Todd. I am sure that the House will join me in extending sympathy to the families of both victims of such tragic murders.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider arranging a debate on eastern Europe? I note that next week it can be debated, but should not there be a general debate on eastern Europe, especially as the Conservative party has begun a political programme, including speeches at its conference, trying to suggest that democratic socialism equates with Stalinism? Some of us resent that very much indeed, based on our experience of consistently arguing that there was no socialism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Socialism means freedom. The suggestions of Conservative Members that the capitalist system is the only free system in the world is not true, and we want to debate that.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman. To some extent, the matter can be touched on in tomorrow's debate on the unification of Germany. In the time that remains before prorogation, I cannot promise him the prospect of a wider debate, but I counsel him, despite the sincerity with which he holds his view, to reflect further on what he has just said. Last week, the British people saw a procession of undoubted leaders of the newly freed countries of Europe coming quite spontaneously to our conference—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It was a set-up.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. Those people came to our party conference to express their solidarity with the democracy for which this party stands, and we are entitled to take the credit for it.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the haemophiliacs who were injected with imported blood containing the HIV virus were the victims of a unique accident which is not the stuff of precedent, and as such are not they entitled to generous, once-off, compassionate compensation? If the Government were not persuaded of that by the excellent Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), will he please arrange a full debate on the subject so that Back Benchers have a chance to persuade the Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend says, the matter was raised in the House on Tuesday in an Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). I cannot add anything further to what was said then.

Mr. Ron Brown: May we have some time next week to discuss the role of Scottish Homes, a Government quango north of the border, as that body has refused to carry out basic essential repairs to properties in my constituency? Sir James Mellon, the chairman of Scottish Homes, is making all sorts of excuses for not carrying out that basic work on behalf of people who are paying high rents for properties that are about to fall down—and I do not exaggerate. May we have some action, even if it is only a debate next week, on this issue, which is vital to people who are concerned about what is happening to them? We talk about a property-owning democracy, but that is a sham, because the Government own these properties. They should be doing something about them.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on that issue. All I can do is bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Peter Fry: Will my right hon. and learned Friend think again about the suggestion by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—I am sure that we are all pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place—that there should be a debate on eastern Europe? Events in the Gulf have tended to cloud the great volatility that still exists in that part of the continent. Those of us who recently returned from Yugoslavia are aware of the risk of civil war in that country, the results of which would be incalculable. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please think again about having an early debate on eastern Europe?

Sir Geofffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend presses me on that point. I do not underestimate the legitimate and widespread interest in this topic, but I have no possible scope for a debate on it before prorogation. There will be an opportunity to raise that matter on the foreign affairs day of the debate on the Gracious Speech. I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind thereafter.

Mr. Peter Shore: I welcome the debate on the ERM. Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be welcome, not only to Back Benchers on both sides of the House but to members of the Cabinet, if he were to announce today that there will be a free vote at the end of the debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Whipping is not, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House. It is for the Chief Whips, both of whom are here, to give to the right hon. Gentleman's observation such attention as they think is due.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The excellent report of the working party on noise which was published this afternoon by the Department of the Environment deals with the noise nuisance to large numbers of our constituents from such sources as aircraft, helicopters, trains, lorries, amplified music, late-night parties, dogs and burglar alarms. Can we please discuss that report reasonably soon? I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that the secretary to the working party was my late constituent, Charlie Bayne, who was warmly commended by the chairman in his introduction for the respect in which he was held for his great tenacity and application.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot respond positively at this stage to his request for such a debate, although I gladly join him in expressing my sympathy to Charlie Bayne's family. Charlie Bayne's father was one of Her Majesty's ambassadors during my time at the Foreign Office. I am sure that my colleagues would wish to endorse what was said by the working party about the courage with which he discharged his duty on the secretariat to the working party.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the announcement this week of the motion setting up the Select Committees to scrutinise the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that, before we rise at the end of this Session, there will be a similar

motion to set up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland, an aspect of government which needs to be scrutinised; or will we have to continue to hasten slowly?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter is summed up in the hon. Gentleman's closing words. I admire his tenacity, but he cannot expect that to be matched by celerity on this matter.

Sir Robert McCrindle: When we discuss next Tuesday our entry into the ERM, will the basis of that debate be sufficiently widely drawn so that we may also discuss the simultaneous reduction in interest rates and so that any hon. Members who doubt the wisdom of linking those decisions may express their views?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should be extremely surprised if it were possible to design a motion on that topic which excluded the important matter that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to the first question of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? The Foreign Secretary returns from the middle east tomorrow evening. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the trip next week so that some of us can get a statement from the Foreign Secretary on what he said in the different countries to explain the British Government's support for immediate action when Iraq invaded Kuwait, for example, compared with the fact that, 23 years after Israel occupied Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza strip—and especially after the murder of 21 Palestinians last Monday—the United Nations sat for five days and then decided to send three assistants from the Secretary-General's office? Is that a result of double standards or is it because the Palestinians have no oil?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was not asked to arrange a debate on that matter, but I was asked to pass on a request for a statement from my right hon. Friend, and I will do that. I do not begin to underestimate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I do not have the impression that my right hon. Friend's journey to the middle east has been notorious for his lack of plain speaking on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted that we sat up late last night dealing with a series of private Bills, and that he has announced more private Bill business for next week? Is he aware that, in the time it has taken, for example, to consider the King's Cross Bill, the Toyota motor corporation has sussed out Europe, sussed out more than 20 sites in this country, picked my constituency, purchased 600 acres of land, obtained planning permission, gone through a compulsory purchase order inquiry and let the contract, is building a factory and will be producing the cars before a single brick is laid at King's Cross? How are we to modernise our country and its infrastructure and, most of all, improve our ports, our harbours and our railways if we are to stick to such an outdated system of procedure in this House?

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Alice Mahon.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I was thinking of something else.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's question was intended largely to answer itself and it went a fair way towards doing so. She is right. We shall press ahead with reforms in the private Bill procedure because they are a matter of some importance.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Alice Mahon.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not think that the question of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was worth an answer either.
Given today's unemployment figure, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on unemployment? In my constituency, 2,000 jobs in manufacturing have gone since January. If he grants such a debate, perhaps we could look in detail at the practices of directors such as Michael Ashcroft, who bled Coloroll dry, took £1·2 million in dividends the year before it went bankrupt and paid himself £500,000 in salary. Yet the Government are now trying to blame low-paid textile workers for the mess they are in.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady is, of course, entitled to draw attention to the rise in unemployment figures reported today. However, they should be set in the much broader context of the very long-term achievements of the present Government. Employment, for example, is at an all-time high. The United Kingdom still has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Community. That is the background against which to judge her point.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give us an early debate on defence issues? The Ministry of Defence currently has the enormous task of building up for the Gulf, and another enormous task of seeing where economies can be made on the defence estate and on all the other costs of defence. The House is interested to achieve the maximum defence dividend, while ensuring that the defence of the realm is preserved. May we have a debate on this subject as soon as possible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: At this stage, I can promise nothing more than to take note of my hon. Friend's important point.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for a stairlift or other form of access for wheelchair users to be able to reach meetings in the Grand Committee Room and in the Jubilee Room, and for a loop for hearing-impaired visitors?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly see that those two points are considered as fully as they deserve to be.

Mr. John Greenway: When can we expect a statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the breakdown of discussions in Brussels on the future of the agriculture budget in the light of the GATT discussions? Many farmers are already facing serious financial difficulty and it is right that the House should consider that. The threat of any reduction in subsidy is already causing grave concern. World affairs are extremely important, but many people in Britain feel that the House does not spend sufficient time on our own domestic problems.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of the agriculture questions raised by my hon. Friend, in which one has to strike the right balance between the need for

reform on the world stage and the needs of our own, like other national farming communities. I cannot promise a statement on the topic next week, as my right hon. Friend the Minister will be returning tomorrow to continue the discussions in which he has already been engaged for two days this week.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware of the statement made today by the president of the Scottish National Farmers Union, that the industry now faces its worst crisis since the 1930s and that he expects a spate of bankruptcies in the hill and upland sectors? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the seriousness of the situation and, given the range of problems facing the industry, may we have an urgent debate on the state of agriculture?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate on that subject, but I do not begin to underrate its importance. For all agricultural communities, the existing state of affairs of widespread national and international intervention by way of subsidy or protection is unsustainable. Her Majesty's Government are playing a leading part in trying to secure progress in the international negotiations that must take place, not least in the EC. We shall continue to do that, and my right hon. Friend will inform the House about his progress as appropriate.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider his earlier disappointing answer about haemophiliacs who are HIV-positive? Is he aware that he will find it increasingly difficult to persuade many of his hon. Friends that the Government are acting in a proper manner in that matter, and the sooner that it is debated in the House and resolved by administrative action and Government decision, rather than by forcing it through the courts, the better.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend and I do not wish to seem in any sense lacking in sympathy, but the fact is that it has been debated in the House once this week, as I have already observed. I can only undertake to bring his observations to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I remind the Leader of the House of the terrible disasters that took place on the North sea oil rigs, particularly the Piper Alpha disaster, when 167 technicians and engineers were burnt to death. Following that, the Government set up an inquiry under Lord Cullen, and we were given to understand that the report would be ready for inspection by the House during June or July. We are still awaiting that report, and there is great unrest on the North sea oil rigs about health and safety. When will the House do something about that to bring this terrible matter to an end? Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate in the House on the report?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give any direct response today to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time at an early date for a debate on trade unions, particularly since the revelation in the


Evening Standard of the appearance of ghosts—not just one person with the same name and address as another, but up to seven on the same list for a union election? Is not that a disgrace? Is it possible that such ghosts are responsible for the missing money of the National Union of Mineworkers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that that particular manifestation of ghostliness deserves to be taken extremely seriously, and I shall see whether an opportunity arises for that.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the Leader of the House make time available next week for a debate on the financial crisis facing the national health service? Is he aware that it became apparent this morning that the Wakefield health authority has agreed a huge package of cuts and closures which will have a devastating effect on my constituents who are on hospital waiting lists and who are suffering pain and discomfort? I am aware that such deficits are affecting many health authorities throughout Britain. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate on that. However, it is important to note that the figures for those on waiting lists at March 1990, which will be published in full quite shortly, show a reduction of almost 5 per cent. since September 1989 in the number of those who have been waiting for more than a year. That represents significant progress.

Mr. Roger Moate: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about the extremely serious situation involving several hundred British drivers and their vehicles which have been stranded for nearly 10 days on the French-Spanish border? Those drivers have suffered great personal difficulties and there will be serious financial consequences. Is not it vital that we hear soon what representations are being made to ensure that the Spanish Government are honouring their obligations under Community rules to allow the free passage of goods and also know whether we are pressing for compensation for those who will suffer financial loss, as the Government did with regard to the lamb war?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Leader of the House aware of a statement made on Thursday 11 October by the chairman of the Fair Employment Tribunal in Northern Ireland, which has had the effect of nullifying the provisions of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989? In view of the urgency of the matter, and the fact that 199 cases are now at a dead halt, will he provide urgent remedial legislation and time for the House to give effect to the wish of the House, which was that the Act should be implemented and used as quickly as possible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman clearly deserves to be studied very closely before I can reach a conclusion about it. I simply undertake to bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange an early debate on the future of the net book agreement which results in book prices being higher and the number of books being sold smaller than would otherwise be the case?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has raised an important and interesting point, which deserves the consideration that I will give to it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can we have a statement next week on the multi-fibre arrangement and the Government's attitude to it? As has been stated already, the GATT negotiations are under way and there is a feeling within the textile industry that the Government have a lacklustre attitude towards the renewal of the MFA, which both employers and unions regard as vital for the retention of a buoyant and successful textile industry.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that we can have a statement, if not next week then at least in the near future, because 14,000 jobs in Bradford depend directly on textiles and nearly 500,000 throughout the country depend on textiles and clothing? This is a vital matter if we are to retain a textile industry.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the importance of the textile industry, which was debated on 26 July, and not long ago, I had an opportunity to study a document from the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance, the burden of which underlined the link between the GATT negotiations and the MFA. If all the parties concerned demonstrate the necessary commitment in the final crucial stage of the Uruguay round negotiations, we can achieve the better balance in world trade which we are all looking for upon the basis laid out in the European Commission's negotiating policy.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Apart from a possible statement from the Foreign Secretary about the situation in the middle east, should not we have another fully-fledged debate about the Gulf crisis? Some of us would like to debate things before war breaks out so that we can try in some small way to influence developments. There was a great demand to speak in the House in our earlier Gulf debate and 40 hon. Members who wanted to speak were not called then. It looks odd to people outside this place that we are not debating the Gulf now that Parliament has returned after the recess, particularly as the danger still exists. There will be differing views about how the situation should be handled and it is right that we should be concerned and that the House should be seen to be debating the issue.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. However, we must fit in other matters in the relatively short time before Parliament is prorogued. It is for that purpose that a Government day next week has been devoted to the ERM debate and the Opposition day has been transferred to the next Session. There will be opportunities after the Queen's Speech, not least in the Queen's Speech debate itself, but I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Leader of the House aware that we still do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, despite Standing Order No. 130, which makes it compulsory? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman view the video of yesterday's Scottish Question


Time? It is a perfect illustration of the anger felt on these Benches and in many places in Scotland because we are denied the instrument of investigation at precisely the moment when we require it. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland met the chairman of British Steel on Tuesday and then, at the Dispatch Box yesterday afternoon, offered no detailed statement on the discussions that he had had with the chairman about the future of the Scottish steel industry?
Is the Leader of the House also aware that the British Steel board and chairman are deliberately out to destroy the Scottish steel industry piecemeal and that we are denied by the House the kind of Select Committee that is the one defensive mechanism that we could deploy against them? If he tells me that it is not the Government's responsibility, will he admit the logic of the position that this House of Commons, with its English majority, is denying Scotland the Select Committee the opportunity to defend ourselves in Lanarkshire against the investment that is going to Teesside?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman spoils such case as he has by his overstatement of the matter. It plainly cannot be sustained that British Steel is deliberately out to destroy anything. Moreover, he should note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday faced, I should judge, about 20 minutes' questioning on the very topic that the hon. Gentleman raises. He was exposed to full and rigorous questioning by the House, and gave a full account of himself.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I reinforce the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that there is a need for a full debate on the Gulf crisis before Prorogation. Surely we owe it to the British people as a whole and to the thousands of British service men in the gulf to keep the matter at the forefront of our deliberations. In view of the press report that the British Government have been privately urging the United States Administration to take an early decision on military action against Iraq, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity this afternoon to affirm that it is still Government policy that mandatory economic sanctions be given a chance to work?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government's policy is to secure full implementation of the resolution that was passed by the United Nations Security Council. I have already acknowledged the case for a debating opportunity as soon as it can be found when the House resumes after Prorogation. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of not only hearing a statement from the Foreign Secretary next Wednesday but asking him questions when he faces the House for questions in the ordinary way.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House at all uncomfortable that those in the other place who have been most angry about the Nature Conservancy Council are those such as Lord Buxton—Conservative peers who know most about it? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood also that there has been a recent staff vote in the Nature Conservancy Council in

which an overwhelming majority of members of staff not only in Peterborough but in Scotland and in Wales have come down against the proposals?
Was not the whole matter misconceived in the first place by wanting to please the Scots, when those of us in Scotland who knew and cared most were passionately against the expensive, costly, wasteful and absurd break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council? In the circumstances, should not there be a statement next week, before we get down to amendments, that the Government have given up the idea, at any rate for this year? There would be no shame in doing so. The time that is saved could be used for a proper statement and a debate on the middle east.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman may have some observations to make during our consideration of the Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill on Monday week.

Mr. Max Madden: Did the Leader of the House see The Observer magazine last Sunday, which revealed the increasing number of hon. Members who hold outside financial and commercial interests, with the potential for a conflict of interest where the Chairpersons of key parliamentary Committees hold financial and commercial interests that have a direct bearing on the work of their Committees?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore have any plans to enable the House to decide whether it thinks it right that the hon. Members for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), who are all Chairpersons of parliamentary Committees, should hold extensive financial and commercial interests which have a direct bearing on the work of their Committees? Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to decide whether we think that that is right, because I can tell him that many of us think that it is entirely wrong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That colour supplement made a great deal more than I should have imagined possible out of some relatively modest factual material. The questions that both it and the hon. Gentleman have raised are appropriate for investigation in the first instance not by the House but by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which has been investigating some of them. That is the first place to which any such complaint should be referred.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Leader of the House give some sympathetic consideration to the holding of a debate on the present circumstances of the United Kingdom's maritime industries? I refer in the main to shipping, shipbuilding, marine engineering and, of course, to the fishing industry. Many thousands of people employed in those industries genuinely believe that they, their industries and their communities face a bleak future. Hon. Members representing Scotland find the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish Question Time a poor substitute for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, especially when it comes to giving tough-minded scrutiny to Government policy on these and other industries. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept the need for such a debate in the near future.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to arrange a debate on that topic in the near future, but I know that that question is of interest not only to Scottish Members but to hon. Members representing other parts of the country—not least because my Parliamentary Private Secretary represents a fishing constituency. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House please arrange an early debate on the continuing, alarming and unacceptable increase in the crime rate, which, unfortunately, has been at its worst in the county of Leicestershire? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that hon. Members of all parties, including particularly his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), have been pressing continually for years for proper policing in accordance with the wishes and requests of successive chief constables? It is not enough to declare a vague promise at the Tory party conference that the number of police will be increased. Hon. Members who represent Leicestershire on both sides of the House demand increased resources now before the crime rate gets even worse in our county.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman can be relied upon to overstate the case. He talks about vague promises at the Tory party conference. Everyone is concerned about the level of crime, and the fact is that under this Government there has been a massive increase—

Mr. Janner: A massive increase in crime.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There has been a massive increase in resources, including police officers in service, as a direct result of the Government's policies. Our concern has been expressed by actions rather than by words, at which the hon. and learned Gentleman is an expert.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the economy has moved into recession, the unemployment figures have risen several months in succession, and bankruptcies and liquidations have trebled in the past year, why does not the

Leader of the House arrange a debate on bankruptcies and the economy? We could not only discuss the massive unemployment that affects my hon. Friends' constituencies; we could also invite Tory Members to talk about the demise of Murdoch's empire, in which shares have fallen in value by two thirds this year, and the winding up of the Tory party's little Blue Rosette company with debts of £100,000, which meant that, at the Bournemouth conference, the Prime Minister's face had to be taken off every single mug?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the characteristically good-natured way in which the hon. Gentleman expresses his interest in the matter. He will surely appreciate that much of what happens to unemployment in the months ahead, as in the years past, depends on the attitude adopted by pay negotiators on both sides of the industry. I hope that he will lend his support to the cause of pay moderation.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Leader of the House recognise that the erosion of farm incomes in the hills and uplands of Scotland is catastrophic? Does he accept that there is an urgent need for a debate while the autumn review is pending, to enable hon. Members to bring their knowledge of the matter to the attention of responsible Ministers before decisions are taken, not only in Brussels but by our domestic Ministries, on the hill livestock compensatory allowance levels?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I dealt with that point some time ago. The matter can be dealt with time and again. Of course there is anxiety on both sides of not only the House, but virtually every democratic assembly in the industrialised world about the state of the farming industry. It is caused by the manifest capacity to produce surpluses, which is not mitigated by the existence of massive protection. It is for that reason that the Government have taken and are taking the lead in the necessary worldwide reform of agricultural protection. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kept the House fully informed of the results of his work and will continue to do so.

Points of Order

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice and guidance? During Prime Minister's Question Time today, the Prime Minister, in a somewhat hysterical outburst, referred clearly to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as a crypto-communist. Those words were not only clearly overheard, but are in the preliminary draft of the Official Report. Since they were uttered, I have had the opportunity to consult "Erskine May", which on page 381 makes it clear that
the imputation of false or unavowed motives
is unparliamentary language. I assume that the rules on unparliamentary language apply even to the Prime Minister. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, can advise me how that totally dishonest and abusive smear of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] There would be very different noises on the other side of the House if the position were reversed. We are not prepared to accept one set of rules for the rabble over there and another set for my hon. Friends. Can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, how the Prime Minister can be caused to remove those words from the record and how we can have Hansard put straight?

Mr. Speaker: This is not the moment for points of order but since it has been raised I will deal with it. As far as I am aware, the word "communist" has never been considered unparliamentary. In any case, I am afraid that I did not hear the last part of that sentence—

Dr. Cunningham: It is in the record.

Mr. Speaker: It may be in the record, but there was a great deal of noise. I recollect that when the Leader of the Opposition rose he appeared to be laughing heartily. I did not hear the remark, but such matters should be raised immediately in order that they can be dealt with by the Chair.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rest my case on "Erskine May" which says on page 381:
The imputation of false or unavowed motives
to a Member is unparliamentary. It is absolutely unacceptable for the Prime Minister to get away with smearing the Leader of the Opposition in this way.

Mr. Speaker: If I had heard the expression, I would have stopped it. I am surprised that the issue was not raised immediately at the time if anyone else heard it. I did not hear the Prime Minister make a personal accusation against the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition in that exchange. I cannot do anything about it now, but I am sure that the matter will be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and she will make amends.

Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What you are really saying is that on some future occasion we can refer to the Prime Minister as a crypto-fascist and that that will be in order.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall always treat each other with respect. Sadly at Prime Minister's Question Time there is frequently a great deal of noise and it is not possible for us all to hear exactly what is said. I did not hear the expression. If other hon. Members heard it and felt aggrieved about it, I am genuinely surprised that they did not get up to draw it to my attention immediately.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all heard the Leader of the Opposition utter crude and uncouth abuse at the Prime Minister. If the Opposition do not like it being dished out, they should not dish it out in the first place.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just driven back from the by-election at Eastbourne and I heard clearly on the car radio the term "crypto-communist". Therefore, the nation heard it. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago a complaint was made by a Conservative Member about a reference to fascism made by one of my hon. Friends. On that occasion my hon. Friend was required to withdraw that statement. May we simply ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House instead of driving in his car, he would have had an opportunity to raise the matter with me at the time. The whole House knows that I deprecate the use of such phrases. I required the term "fascist" to be withdrawn on that occasion because I heard it. Today, unfortunately, I was not driving in my car and I did not hear it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to reflect upon the matter to see what can be done.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are reflecting on the matter you might bear in mind that representations have been made in the past; for instance, when I called Dr. Death a pompous sod, I had to take an early bath. When I said that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had been lining his pockets because he got an non-executive directorship of British Telecom, I had an early bath. In this quaint little place you have different rules for different people.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not want another one.

Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on the same matter?

Mr. Trimble: Yes, it is. I just wondered, now that we have the cameras in this place, whether it would be appropriate to have action replays. You could then be sure of exactly what was said.

Mr. Speaker: The cameras are a large part of the trouble really.

Seven-Year-Olds (Testing)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): Following discussions with and advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today decided on the scope of the tests to be used in the first national assessments of all seven-year-olds in 1991. I am arranging for copies of the specification for drawing up the actual tests themselves to be placed in the Library of the House.
The national tests will concentrate on what is of key concern to parents—reading, writing, arithmetic and basic scientific skills. Because the ability to read is vital to pupils' future development, all seven-year-olds will be tested separately on their ability to read. To help ensure consistency of standards, that test will be based on a range of common texts.
I believe that it is important that at this age the tests concentrate on the basics. That is not only right in itself, but means tests that will be manageable in the classrooms. The tests will take up the equivalent of about a week and a half of classroom time in the first half of the summer term. The message from this summer's pilot tests was that they overloaded the schools. I have decided that next year's tests will be simpler and will concentrate on what really matters. In addition to the external tests, teachers will also carry out their own tests of all seven-year-olds across all aspects of English, maths and science in the national curriculum.
For the first time, we shall have a national system in all schools which will enable parents and teachers to know how their children are progressing in the basics of education. All parents will be able to get clear and objective results and to talk to teachers about their children's progress. For each child, teachers will be able to build upon strengths and tackle weaknesses.
The national curriculum sets clear and demanding national targets for pupils of all ages and abilities in English, mathematics and science. The tests will show how pupils—individually and collectively—are measuring up to those targets. For the first time, we shall have clear, national information about what is happening to standards. The arrangements that I am announcing today for testing seven-year-olds are the key to raising those standards.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this afternoon's announcement represents a major and humiliating U-turn—[Interruption.] I appreciate why Conservative Members do not like that news, but it is true. It represents a major and humiliating U-turn by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet against the whole concept of the national curriculum and testing contained in the Education Reform Act 1988.
Is it because the Secretary of State understands the extent of the Government's embarrassment that, as the Order Paper makes clear, his original intention was to slip out this announcement by way of a written answer and that this oral statement had to be wrung from him?
The Secretary of State must know that the Labour party and virtually everyone else told his predecessor, now the chairman of the Conservative party, that the national curriculum was too inflexible and that the complex testing

of seven-year-olds—for which every Conservative Member voted—in English, maths, science, history, geography, technology, music, art and physical education was not only ludicrously impractical but would seriously damage the education of a great many children.
Is not it a sign of the Government's profound arrogance that they refused to listen and instead have subjected teachers and other people's children to three years of experimentation, while of course ensuring that their own children, in private schools, remain immune from the national curriculum and therefore from this chaos? Against that background, is it any wonder that public confidence in the Government's handling of education and in the Secretary of State has never been lower since the last world war?
If, as a junior education Minister said in July, the pilots were too unwieldy, and if, as the Secretary of State has admitted today, they caused an overload to the curriculum, why did Ministers allow them to go ahead, since others told them clearly in advance what the consequences of those pilots would be? How much has this experimentation with other people's children cost the taxpayer? How many million sheets of paper have been wasted? How much has teachers' morale been damaged?
In contrast to the confusion of the Government's position, Labour has always been clear. We have sought tests in basic subjects such as reading, writing, maths and science as an aid to raising standards, to diagnose children's strengths and weaknesses and to help provide information about the performance of schools. We shall judge this afternoon's proposals by those criteria, and for that reason we welcome the separate reading test, which is long overdue.
What will be the cost of these proposals for testing? Who will prepare and evaluate the tests? What will be the link between these tests and the national curriculum? What will be the status of the separate teacher tests in relation to the standard assessment tasks?
There have been a good many suggestions in the newspapers that the tests announced by the right hon. Gentleman today cannot be in place in all schools by the summer of 1991. Can he guarantee that that will not be the case?
At the beginning of his statement, the Secretary of State said that he had received advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council. Did he accept that advice—and, if not, to what extent did he depart from it? Will he also explain the exact status of the document entitled "Specification for the Development of Standard Assessment Tasks in the Core Subjects"? Is it to be the basis of the proposals for contracts for the new tests? What additional support will schools be given to help children when strengths are noted or weaknesses diagnosed?
The Secretary of State speaks of standards, but he must know that maths standards have fallen and that that has coincided with a decline in the number of properly qualified maths teachers. He must also know that there is evidence that reading standards may have fallen, but the Government abandoned the national monitoring of reading standards in 1988 and cannot say whether they have gone up or down. Furthermore, it is simply untrue for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, for the first time, we shall have clear national information about what is happening to standards, when we were already receiving that information from the Assessment of Performance


Unit, established in 1975—and abolished by the present Government in 1988, with the consequence that the monitoring of reading standards ceased.
Given the continuing confusion and continual changes in regard to the national curriculum, does the Secretary of State agree that he must now publish a comprehensive White Paper on testing in the national curriculum, setting out exactly what the Government expect of schools, pupils and teachers and how these changes are intended to raise standards?
From the retreat that the statement represents, is not it clear that our children and our schools have paid a high price for that near-lethal combination of doctrinaire intransigence and administrative incompetence which is the hallmark of the Government's education policies?

Mr. MacGregor: That is the biggest load of nonsense that I have heard in a long time. I am astonished at the attempts by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to build bricks out of air—[HON. MEMBERS: "Straw!"] No, there was not even any straw there.
Let me deal first with the points that the hon. Gentleman made about standards. When he spoke about maths standards falling, he entirely neglected the fact that assessments made between 1982 and 1987 showed that in a number of areas maths standards had actually improved. When he draws our attention to an area in which standards may have dropped, the hon. Gentleman does not mention all the areas in which they may have improved much more than they have dropped.
By constantly harping on the aspects that still need to be improved in schools—and, of course, improvements will always be necessary—the hon. Gentleman destroys the confidence of the many good teachers who are doing so much to raise standards. That is already happening with the national curriculum.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned reading standards, but the evidence in that regard is not clear; those who presented it described it as prima facie and not certain. We do not know whether reading standards have fallen in some cases, although I am taking steps to check the figures nationally. But, if they have—here I choose my words with care—it is nothing to do with teaching resources; it is to do with certain teaching methods introduced by socialist educational practices and philosophies. If there was indeed a decline earlier in the decade, it was due to that approach.
The hon. Gentleman is way off beam when he talks about a U-turn. We are introducing the most carefully prepared educational reforms that have been carried out for a long time: that is why the advisory body's pilot projects were undertaken. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), said from the outset that the assessment of seven-year-olds would consist of a combination of external tests and teacher assessments. For the past two years we have been undertaking pilot schemes to ensure that we get the balance right. That was the whole point of the pilot project.
During the summer I said that I believed that the pilot schemes undertaken by agencies developing the tests showed that the system was overloaded. I could see that that was the case and I made that clear early on. However, big benefits have been gained from the pilot schemes, apart from our being enabled to reach these decisions. A great

deal of work has gone into developing the tests, which we shall use for seven-year-olds within the national curriculum, and experience has been gained from the pilot tests.
The hon. Member asked about the cost of the scheme. Much of the cost of the schemes intended to be undertaken in schools next summer will be within their normal expenditure. Through specific grants this year I have supported a total expenditure of about £35 million for assessment in the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman's next question was about who will prepare and evaluate tests. The School Examinations and Assessment Council will now go out to tender to agencies to draw up the tests. The evaluation will be done by SEAC.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Blackburn does not understand the link between the tests and the national curriculum. The curriculum is all about raising standards and extending the range of education. Assessment and tests will be linked with the development of the national curriculum in the particular subjects—English, maths and science—that we shall be testing next summer.
I confirm that we shall be doing national testing in the summer of 1991, for the first time. As the national curriculum develops I expect that we shall learn that some things need to be changed. The hon. Member for Blackburn shows an astonishing ignorance of how these things are done if he expects everything to be absolutely right from day one. We shall continue to develop on the basis of experience. The reason for carrying out the pilot tests was to learn from two years' experience before we tested nationally for the first time. We have concentrated the tests on certain areas, but we have not changed their nature.
The hon. Member asked about the specification that has been drawn up for developing tests, which will go to the agencies. It also contains information for teachers, although a great deal more information and training for teachers will be provided in the early part of next year.
I am simply astonished at the hon. Gentleman's charges this afternoon. We are carrying out precisely what we said we would do at the beginning: raising standards with national testing for all seven-year-olds as a basis. The tests have been based on the most careful evaluation of the pilot tests in the past two years.

Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed by parents? Can he confirm that the tests will be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that any shortcomings in a child's education can be identified quickly? Does he agree that if there is a problem with a child's education the quicker that it is identified, the sooner it can be put right, to the benefit of that child's further education?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is one of the main purposes of assessment and testing. Yes, the tests will be rigorous, stimulating, imaginative and they will be external—the child will not see them in the classroom beforehand.
Above all, the tests will enable the teacher to assess the pupil's ability and to identify weaknesses, and they will enable the parents to know what level the child has


reached. It is a more systematic way of ensuring that children have the benefit of such an approach in all schools.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, and his decision to abandon the more complex and unworkable proposals envisaged by his predecessor. This scheme is a great improvement. However, will not parents be much more concerned about what the tests show than the fact there are tests? Is not the reality that, in more than 10 years of Tory Government, standards in literacy and numeracy have fallen dramatically in many areas? Is not the key question what will be done about standards and resourcing education so that they rise, which is much more important than what sort of tests we have, although they will be helpful in proving just how badly off and badly educated some of our young people are?

Mr. MacGregor: I reject absolutely the charge that what I am doing is different from that which was envisaged by my predecessor. What he so rightly set in train were pilots and work done by specialists to develop the basic concepts of the national curriculum and to carry them through into testing. As a result of what they did during the summer, we have learnt that the way in which they were trying to develop the tests was too cumbersome. What they were doing, for example—this is very much a technical matter—was to ask the teachers in all the classrooms where pilots were undertaken this summer to start the children at level one, and if they passed that, to let them go on to level two, and then, if they passed level two, to go on to level three. The teachers know broadly the level at which children come in. Therefore, it makes much more sense to go straight to the level that the teacher thinks is right and then, if the tests prove that to be wrong, to drop back or to go forward. That is a technical point, but it led to overloading and to too cumbersome tests this summer.
That was my conclusion after studying the results of the pilots undertaken by the educational advisers. I reject absolutely the charge that what I am doing is different from what was envisaged by my predecessor. I am sure that he would have come to the same conclusion as I.
The hon. Gentleman must surely acknowledge that standards of literacy and numeracy and many other standards have risen sharply during the past 10 years. That is why many more children are taking GCSE and A-levels and getting better grades, and that is why many more young people are going into higher education.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement most emphatically does not represent a retreat but a very important advance? Is he also aware that there is widespread appreciation of the great thoughtfulness and care with which he has approached the matter? That is crucial if we are to establish higher standards in British education.

Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. He knows a great deal about these matters. I agree with him. I believe that this will strengthen the national curriculum because it concentrates the standard assessment tasks—the external tests—on subjects that really matter and which concern parents. It will enable teachers to carry out assessment in other subjects. I am sure that it

is the right way to proceed. We have learnt from the pilots that were conducted by the education experts that the system was overloaded and cumbersome in the classroom. I believe that we have now got it right. That is the point of pilots and experiments.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that teachers will greet his statement with a great sense of relief. Is there, however, any school in England or Wales in which the scheme that is to be adopted has been tested? What is to happen in schools where Welsh is the first language? I notice that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is here today. Are we to have a brief statement from him about that? Many parents in Wales will want to know what is to happen.

Mr. MacGregor: During the summer I talked to large numbers of teachers, including those doing the pilots, and found that there was a warm response to the tests. They felt that the tests had been imaginatively developed. We shall be building on them for the full national testing next summer. The tests already carried out have resulted in a positive benefit, and we shall build on them. The teachers found themselves in difficulties because there were too many tests. Overloading was the real problem. Among other things, it made management of the classroom during the period of the tests very difficult. That is what the teachers, including the National Association of Head Teachers, came to talk to me about.
We have all been evaluating the pilots. I repeat again that that is the point of pilots. During the past year we have tested the tests. On that basis, we can test the pupils next year. During the summer the teachers dealt with this admirably and did everything that they could to make sure that the pilots were worth while. Therefore, I am sure that they will welcome the statement that I have made today.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the Welsh language, the standard assessment task material to assess Welsh in Welsh-medium schools will be available to teachers next year, but the first statutory requirement to assess the language will be in 1992.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. I am sure that an overwhelming number of teachers will welcome this simplification. They are worried about the layer after layer. This is, therefore, a sensible proposal.
My right hon. Friend's statement was admirably short. Let us hope that the examinations will also be admirably short. We are talking about a week and a half. The much-maligned 11-plus took one morning. I do not see why the examinations cannot be carried out within a day, or half a day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider cutting the time down even further.
I have considerable sympathy with teachers who feel that if one called a meeting of six classroom infant school teachers and six infant school heads, chosen at random from a list of teachers, and brought them together for a day, they could solve all these difficulties by drawing the tests up themselves, instead of leaving it to the educational establishment which did so much to destroy standards and which is still playing around with all these wrong ideas.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We are being very thorough over the tests for children aged seven. We are testing a wide range of knowledge, skills, understanding and practical


application. Children will be tested individually. Most of the tests will be written tests. Reading tests have to go far beyond one and a half weeks. They have to be done individually with each child. There will be a thorough and wide range of tests. It will be impossible to carry them out in half a day.
Teachers have been involved in drawing up the tests. The tests that have been carried out up to now were used in some local authorities but not in others. They did not apply to the whole of the national curriculum. It was necessary, therefore, to build on them in order to develop a wider range of tests for the national curriculum. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find that the tests are practical and rigorous. The tests will be external and I am sure that they are the kind of things that he would want us to do.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I welcome the proposals for testing seven-year-olds, so long as they are carried out sensitively and constructively and are never used to brand such young children as failures. However, the purpose of the tests is to identify specific needs—both strengths and learning difficulties. Unless we can be reassured that adequate resources will be made available to meet those identified needs, the tests will not be worth while. At the moment many children who have been identified as having special needs—I include children with strengths as well as those with difficulties—have to wait far too long for far too little.

Mr. MacGregor: The whole point of testing at seven is to summarise for parents and teachers the stage that a child has reached at the end of its time at an infant school. It will enable teachers to assess weaknesses and the areas in which further work needs to be done with that child. Children will be graded at different levels. It is a process of, among many other things, identifying special needs.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome the simplified tests, but does my right hon. Friend think that they will have an effect on the way in which the national curriculum is taught at primary stage in schools? Does he agree that at present the national curriculum gives children a broad level of information instead of concentrating on basic skills? Will not these changes inevitably mean, therefore, changes to the way in which the curriculum is introduced?

Mr. MacGregor: The national curriculum is all about obtaining a broader range of knowledge and skills from the age of five to 16. I believe strongly that that is necessary if we are to have an education system for all our children relevant for the 1990s and beyond. A broad range of skills and the understanding and knowledge of practical application are all important. My announcement about concentrating the external tests on the basics—reading, writing, arithmetic and basic scientific skills—means that the tests will deal with matters about which parents are most concerned.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Secretary of State spoke of testing as a method of improving standards. It is teaching which improves standards, not testing. The time spent in testing is time taken from teaching. I do not believe that there is a school in the country where children are not regularly tested so that the

teacher knows how well they are absorbing what is being taught. There is a case for trying to standardise tests, particularly in mathematics, but does the Secretary of State agree that when devising the tests it must be remembered that a child who is allowed to play with balancing apparatus at an early stage will understand quadratic equations easily later on, but may not do well in formal arithmetic tests, which will be no prediction of future standards or ability? Does the Secretary of State agree that the tests must be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but will she ask her question because there is an important debate after this?

Ms. Gordon: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the tests take into account cultural differences, class differences and ethnic minority differences so that the results will not be unfair? Does he agree that the external aspect of testing can be very damaging to children aged seven? It can destroy the self-image of many children who are not able to succeed. The tests must be devised so that children can succeed, because success lays the pathway to future improvement in education.

Mr. MacGregor: It is important to have assessment and testing at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 as well as at 16. It is important so that teachers can assess the progress of the child, so that parents can know what is going on and so that, nationally, we all know the progress that is being made. Therefore, I make no apology for introducing tests and assessments at seven, 11 and 14. There will be a wide range of ways in which the assessment is made. The reaction from the majority of the teaching profession to the national curriculum and concept of assessment has been very favourable. We are introducing a systematic means of checking what children have learnt, checking the results and assessing their progress.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the important Public Accounts Committee debate that will take place immediately after this statement. I understand the importance of this subject and I know that many hon. Members wish to participate. If they are brief, I hope to be able to fit them all in, but I shall have to stop questions to the Secretary of State at 5.10 pm. Therefore, I ask for brief questions now.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the clear guidelines for testing at seven set out by my right hon. Friend. I wonder whether Members of Parliament would achieve good scores if they were allowed to take the test. I should like to ask two clear questions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. How about asking one question? That will give other hon. Members a chance.

Mr. Greenway: Will the test include the spelling of words learnt phonically by children? That will be important. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if teachers are to be asked to spend one and a half weeks testing, it will have serious implications for staff time? They will need help and someone to take the class while they are doing the testing. What will be done?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, spelling is included. It is one of the eight attainment targets outside reading. On my hon.
Friend's second point, testing will be one and a half weeks carried out over three weeks. We believe that that is manageable.

Mr. David Trimble: I and my colleagues also welcome the Secretary of State's statement. We welcome the reduced scope of the tests which will make them more manageable for children and reduce the heavy load on teachers. I see that the assessments will be introduced in 1991. Will the tests come into operation in Northern Ireland in 1991?
The Secretary of State is referring to national assessments and one wonders sometimes to what nation he is referring. Statements of this nature should be made on a United Kingdom basis, not just an England and Wales basis. The Parliament of England and Wales went out of existence nearly 300 years ago.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am responsible for education in England. I shall check up on the points he has raised and ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gets in touch with the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his positive statement with its emphasis on diagnostic testing of pupils and improving quality and standards contrasts with the destructive and negative attitude of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)? It is the same negative attitude that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues exhibited a few months ago when they repeated the allegation—now proved to be untrue—in the National Union of Teachers' advertisements about the quality of our schools which did a great deal to damage morale among teachers.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Max Madden: Can the Secretary of State say what consideration, allowances or weighting will be given to children of seven who take the test but whose first language is not English and to teachers whose first language is English?
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), unless these matters are dealt with in an extremely sensitive way, there is a danger that both children and parents will have their self-esteem damaged. I suspect that some of this may be connected with the recent statement to allow first and primary schools to opt out. If children and their parents become greatly dissatisfied, there will be pressure to opt out of the maintained system.

Mr. MacGregor: This has nothing to do with my recent announcement about extending the option of grant-maintained status to all primary schools. That stands supremely on its own merits. On assessment, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the approach of the national curriculum is that children reach different levels of attainment in different age groups. Some children will reach a certain level at a different time from others. Next summer, in the assessments at seven, there will be three levels—first, second and third. The point is to show parents and teachers what level a child has reached in a certain subject. It may vary from subject to subject. It will show what needs to be done to help the child move to the next stage. It is a means by which a child can assess its own progress.

Mr. George Walden: Will my right hon. Friend give me an absolute assurance that the levels of attainment in the tests will equal or surpass those achieved currently in the best systems on the continent? In other words, can he assure me that this will not prove to be another example of the insular complacency that has afflicted our system? If he can give me that assurance, will he explain how it will be achieved, given that on the continent there is a far more advanced and extensive system of nursery education? At the end of the road, whether it is mathematics or English, we want A-levels. Although we have confidence in the Secretary of State, we do not have confidence in the education industry. That is why vice-chancellors are saying that they will need a fourth year at university for mathematics and it is why A-level English is being diluted, despite my right hon. Friend's assurance to the contrary.

Mr. MacGregor: It is my intention to ensure that we have rigour in the tests. Although it is a different approach from some that take place in other countries, I am determined that we should achieve that rigour. On nursery education, my hon. Friend will know that we start full-time compulsory schooling at an earlier age than most countries in the European Community. That must be taken into account.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: About five minutes ago the Secretary of State said that over the past 18 months he has been testing the tests. Will he also accept that he has been testing the practicality of the dafter ideas of his predecessor, now the chairman of the Conservative party, whose tests and practicality have been found severely wanting? Will he accept that the longer his predecessor stays as Conservative party chairman, the happier we will be, since he cannot do any damage to the nation's children or to us?

Mr. MacGregor: That is nonsense. My right hon. Friend had the good sense to ensure that we ran pilots before setting up a national testing arrangement. We did two years of evaluation, from which we learned much. It is to my right hon. Friend's credit that he set up a system under which we now have the most careful preparation for radical education reforms that I can recall. The hon. Gentleman misses the point of testing tests and evaluation in a small number of primary schools before we go national.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the two great tests that his statement has passed? First, it will give parents an answer to the objective question "How is my child doing in school?" and, secondly, he has clearly listened and responded to the hard-working and professional teachers, who have given him and his colleagues advice on how to handle this matter. He has shown that he has heard them and has been able to agree with their professional judgment.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Minister agree that testing is educationally sound if it establishes a child's problems and allows remedial action to be taken? Testing can be bad if it is done simply to fill files and, in many cases, to act as PR material for a school


or school authority. Will the Minister insist and be emphatic that these tests will not be allowed to be used as PR exercises by a school or education authority?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that one of the points of assessment at seven is to enable evaluation of the child, his progress and the areas that must be tackled because he is showing weakness in them. Equally, it is perfectly reasonable and right—indeed, I would encourage it—for schools to state, if they wish to do so, and we are not making it compulsory next year, what they are achieving in terms of assessment. Two matters are important in helping to raise standards: first, greater choice, which we are achieving under several of our other reforms and, secondly, comparative performance and encouraging schools that perhaps are not doing as well as others to follow schools that are. That is achieved by showing what is going on in the school.

Mr. Michael Jack: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the children who undertook the pilot tests enjoyed them and found them useful? How does he propose to adapt the testing procedures to schools which deal with children who have special learning difficulties but which are also applying the national curriculum to their work?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend's second point is obviously for experts on the subject and I look to SEAC and the agencies it uses to assist with that. It was clear that teachers and pupils found the individual tests stimulating. It was important that they were rigorous, but they found them stimulating. The problem was that there were too many tests.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As I have been a weekly columnist for the New Scientist for 23 years, will the Secretary of State accept that among the scientific community there is sceptical curiosity about testing at seven for basic scientific skills? If John or Jane aged seven seem to fall down on the testing of basic skills in science, what happens? Does anybody try to help them? Do we have the resources to try to help them or is there a danger of simply breaking their hearts and doing nothing about it?

Mr. MacGregor: The purpose of testing is the exploration of science and scientific concepts at a level appropriate for seven-year-olds. I have seen some very good work being done in schools. Criticism has been made that we have not had enough scientific teaching at the appropriate level in our primary schools, just as we have not had enough technology teaching in the past. That is a valid criticism. We are making great improvements and the scientific community welcomes the fact that such heavy emphasis is placed on science in the curriculum.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the concentration in my right hon. Friend's announcement on the three Rs, which is precisely the subject of parental concern at present. Will he ensure that the results of testing are issued in a manner that parents can understand by cutting out the education jargon that afflicts so much of these reports? We should bear it in mind that the very parents who will be reading the reports are those who had trouble with the three Rs in the first place.

Mr. MacGregor: By no means always, but I agree with the main point that my hon. Friend is making. One of the dangers of the education world is that it is riddled with technical and educational jargon. It is extremely important that reports to parents are written in clear language and in a way to which parents can respond. I share my hon. Friend's concern and will try to ensure that happens.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will these arrangements apply to the private sector, or will Tory Members' children be exempt from the provisions of testing, as they are exempt from the provisions of the national curriculum? How will he prevent the seven-year-old examinations being turned into a seven-plus procedure, with all the accompanying difficulties for the children involved? Would not it be better, rather than lavishing millions of pounds on this system, to lavish millions of pounds on more teachers to get smaller classes, because that is the only way that we shall achieve better standards?

Mr. MacGregor: Parliament decided, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that independent schools should not be brought within the national curriculum. There is pretty rigorous testing in many independent schools at various ages. As I have made clear many times, I hope that more and more will use the national curriculum.

Mr. Cryer: They do not have to.

Mr. MacGregor: No. Under the legislation they do not have to do so, but I believe that more will wish to participate fully in the national curriculum and I will welcome that.

Mr. James Paice: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's concentration on the three Rs but particularly concentrate on reading? Will he assure me that the test will be sufficiently diagnostic that it will detect children suffering from dyslexia so that they are not branded as backward in reading and writing? It is of particular importance because I am afraid that a number of teachers do not accept that such a condition exists.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that will follow entirely from the assessment at seven, but the assessment of reading will detect children who continue to have reading difficulties, and it will do so on an externally assessed basis. In other words, the tests will be external. That will enable the teachers to identify children who have reading difficulties, which obviously they will be able to do in many other ways.

Mr. Peter Fry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who has scored a great victory for common sense in his proposals. Many of us will see it as a victory over that part of the education establishment that seemed determined to undermine the Education Reform Act 1988. May we hope that in future announcements on tests he will follow the same policy as he has in today's statement? Will he consider the amounts that we pay those in the education service who advise, write and talk but do not teach, and concentrate more effort in the classroom, where the money is needed?

Mr. MacGregor: I have been evaluating carefully and discussing testing with many people. I have been evaluating the reaction of teachers who have been conscientiously doing the pilots. I have been discussing for


some time with my official advisory body, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, and others what lessons we had learnt from the pilots and what decisions I should take. I believe that the decisions that I have taken, based on the advice of the School Examinations and Assessment Council, which is responsible for carrying this through, are absolutely right for the national curriculum. They will ensure that the national curriculum is carried through as we wish. They concentrate on the basics, which is important at the age of seven, and, for the first time, introduce across the country the concept of external tests. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks that he made about the decisions that I have taken this afternoon.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: As a former teacher, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. It is good news that we are to make progress on testing in 1991. If we are to have a proper compulsory national system of testing of children, with a view to helping those in difficulties and raising overall standards, why cannot we have a proper compulsory national system of testing teachers, with the same objectives?

Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that I believe that teacher appraisal is desirable. I am trying to put in place a national framework for teacher appraisal. I do not think that it is right at the moment to move to statutory, compulsory, obligatory appraisal systems in every school, for the simple reason that the key priority at the moment is to get the national curriculum in place and to make those reforms work. I have been conscious of the hard work that many schools are doing in that respect. I do not want to overload the system at a time when we must make the national curriculum work. Many schools have been carrying out appraisals, and I have encouraged that.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will reject the calls of those who wish individual tests for children to be made so variable, for a variety of reasons, that children's weaknesses may not be exposed or may be excused? Unless children have objective targets at which to aim, whatever their backgrounds may be, we will be selling them short. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to parents and teachers that these tests are only one way of looking at a school, that many other components make a good school and that tests should be seen in the context of whatever else is done in a school? Teachers must recognise that tests are important, but parents must also recognise that there are other components on which to make a judgment.

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole point of introducing these external tests is to get the right balance between teacher assessment and external tests. The external tests bring in rigour and uniformity and give parents a much greater guarantee about the progress being made on the basics. It is important to strike the right balance, which is what I think we are doing. I agree with my hon. Friend that many aspects in a school are relevant to a school's performance, as well as what we have been talking about this afternoon.

Public Accounts

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 34th to 41st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1988–89, of the 1st to 32nd Reports of Session 1989–90, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of finance and Personnel Memoranda on those Reports (Cm. 963, 964, 1057, 1101, 1150, 1235 and 1247) with particular reference to the following Reports:
1988–89
Thirty-sixth, Further matters relating to Northern Ireland;
1989–90
First, Financial problems at universities;
Sixth, Sale of rover Group to British Aerospace plc;
Thirteenth, Ministry of Defence: Further examination of the Sale of Royal Ordnance plc;
Sixteenth, Financial Management in the National Health Service;
Thirty-first, Quality control of road and bridge construction.
The last public accounts debate was a little less than a year ago. We are moving to a tradition of holding over the debate for the overspill of the Session or shortly afterwards. The last motion referred to 48 reports; this time there are 40 reports and eight Government replies. We have chosen a few reports to highlight to which special attention should be drawn, although obviously many others will be mentioned during the debate.
My first task is to thank members of the hard-working Public Accounts Committee. Two Members no longer serve on the Committee. The first is Ian Gow, whose absence we greatly deplore. He carried out incisive questioning and was a valuable member of the Committee. All members of the Committee regret the occurrence that led to his departure from the Committee and the absence of his wise counsel during our investigations.
The other Member who is absent from the Committee is my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Like so many others, he has been moved to the Opposition Front Bench. A large number of Opposition Members on our Committee have moved to the Opposition Front Bench—my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). It looks as though the Public Accounts Committee is fulfilling, on the Opposition Benches, the role that the Government Whips Office fulfils in recruiting to the Government Front Beench. This is a compliment and we value it, but we face some difficulties in finding replacements.
I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He is always welcome. The roles of the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee have several similarities. We are both anxious to get value for money and to ensure that taxpayers' money is used properly. We are grateful to the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who left the Committee in the last reshuffle.
The most important aspect of the Committee's work is unanimity. During the time I have had the privilege of being Chairman, there have been well over 300 reports, and every one has been unanimous. It is an enormous advantage to have unanimity. The Government have to take note of our reports, because hon. Members have


come to identical conclusions. Our reports are not mushy. Some Committees can produce unanimous reports because they sink their differences in the ambiguity of wording. Members of the Public Accounts Committee are outspoken at the beginning of our discussions and at the end.
Unanimity is crucial. It comes from our respect for the taxpayer. We do not produce partisan views when we question witnesses and discuss reports. We have the enormous advantage that we do not look at policy. We take policy for granted, however much personally we may object to it. Policy is laid down. We want its economic, efficient and effective implementation. I have been pleased to see the large amount of work that my colleagues put into investigations. That was not always so. I am grateful for the investigations by my colleagues into certain matters, rather surprising the National Audit Office and me with their thoroughness.
The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are very much a partnership these days. The Committee depends on investigations by the National Audit Office, based as they are on detailed investigation of Government papers and accounts. We build on them with evidence from accounting officers and then produce reports for the House. Treasury minutes respond to our reports. We welcome the new form of Treasury minute, whereby each of our recommendations is followed by a response from a Government Department via the Treasury. Under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in the investigations that he undertakes. There is discussion with the Committee and our views are inserted in reports. We hear well in advance of matters that will be investigated.
I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. The office has undoubtedly improved enormously since the days of the Exchequer and Audit Department. Previously, there were civil servants trying to be auditors; now, there are proper auditors. In fact, one of our problems is that the auditors have become so good that the City and other private enterprises want to take many of them. Because of the different rates of pay, a number of people leave the National Audit Office. However, because of interest in the job, its importance and the initiative that staff are allowed, we are able to retain people despite the rather lower levels of pay. We are grateful to them for all they do. We have meetings at the National Audit Office to see how they are progressing. The Public Accounts Committee is always a critical Committee, so we cannot be filled with uncritical admiration for them. Nevertheless, we are filled with admiration for the way in which they carry out improvements.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, Bill Jack, and his staff, do a valuable job. I have chosen the Northern Ireland report as the first one to mention. I do not think that we have given it enough attention in our Committee debates. I am glad to see some Northern Ireland Members here, and I hope that they will comment in due course. The CAG for Northern Ireland makes his reports separately from the appropriation accounts, but there are some reports from the

appropriation accounts. We do not have to wait for an annual publication, as reports are now published twice a year.
We also thank Treasury Officer of Accounts, John Beastall, and his Northern Ireland counterpart, John Dowdall, for their attendance at our sessions, and the accounting officers who come to give evidence. We are very much aware of the amount of time that they give in coming before us to give evidence. We know that they take their responsibilities in this seriously and that reputations can be made and —I hope rarely—unmade as a result of their failures or—which is far more common—their successes in dealing with public money.
The 36th report of 1988–89 is entitled "Further matters relating to Northern Ireland". Typically, we have about two investigative sessions a year and look at six or seven matters concerning Northern Ireland. I will concentrate on one matter, but to bring it into perspective, I will mention some of the matters that we have considered previously.
The most important was the De Lorean investigation some years ago. It led to our appreciation of the work done by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General. That report was fully up to the standard of anything that we have produced and led to some important matters. The Committee investigated the way in which the money was disposed of, which led to other interesting aspects.
We did not take evidence from either of the Ministers involved. Under the Labour Administration, one Minister started the whole process, and under the Conservative Administration, the other Minister gave substantial sums. The question was whether we should have them before us. I thought that it would be wrong to do so, and I still think that.
Under normal circumstances, we have the enormous advantage of looking at the issue, although we do not, of course, disqualify ourselves from hearing evidence from Ministers in future. However, when a Minister comes before us, personalities will play their part. Even more importantly, the Minister who started the process would be able to claim that it had not been continued in the way that he would have wished and the Minister who was involved at a later stage would say, "If only I had been there at the beginning, I would have handled it differently." We must avoid such a situation.
The person who always comes before us is the accounting officer of the day. He or she may be new to the post, but he or she holds the responsibility for the Department in the same way that the Financial Secretary will be responsible for his reply. Although he is fairly new to his position, I am sure that his reply will be interesting and we look forward to it. Our system provides the continuity of responsibility without which we could not sensibly operate. We have responsibility not for the people who come and go, but for the Department itself, so we are able to carry out proper investigations.
The De Lorean report led to various other matters, one of which was the role of the nominee directors. We found that there were nominee directors at a time when money was being passed over from the United States. We asked the Treasury what the role of a nominee director was and we had to wait an inordinate time for the answer. I cannot recall the exact time, but I know that it was six months or longer before we found out the answer.
Once one has raised such questions, one starts to wonder what the nominee directors are doing. There are a


number of them in various industries. The Government appoint them and a nominee directorship is regarded as a bit of a perk in some quarters. One has to have someone quite good in the job, but one does not think of them as having the responsibility to inform the Government when things are going wrong, as they may often do. The rather light-hearted approach became a far more serious investigation and led to a further report.
A couple of years ago, we investigated road accident compensation. We found that pavements were being dug up—or something was happening—and that people were tripping over. Most of us have had a constituent who has made a claim after tripping up, but I can recall only a handful of such cases. Yet we found that in Northern Ireland there were streets in which there was a claim in almost every house. The following year, we asked how it was going, and we found that matters were worse.
Not so long ago, such matters were put out to private insurers. They thought that they could do a better job themselves, but they found that they were spending far more money on the claims. In one sense, it was not their fault, because the courts decided the amount of compensation. However, it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to ensure that the roads and pavements are kept up reasonably so that claims do not arise. We know about the problems in Northern Ireland as our colleagues tell us about them. We are also aware of them from the unfortunate statements that come all too frequently.
We understand that there are particular difficulties, but people in Northern Ireland, rightly, want the maintenance of the same standards that we expect in the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not make concessions on that, and it would be wrong to do so. I am sure that the Northern Ireland people feel the same as we do.
I want to refer again to the 36th report from 1988–89. In 1973, it was decided to promote a nursery to grow shrubs and plants for housing estates. That was a sensible proposition, as every housing estate needs plants and shrubs, and flowers would be needed for events such as lord mayors' functions. That happens in many local authorities in Great Britain.
It was decided that, instead of buying plants from outside, the nursery would grow them. The stock had to be valued at the end of each year and it was thought that as plants grow, they tend to be worth rather more at the end of each year than they are at the beginning. An average valuation of a 10 per cent. increase was put on each plant and shrub.
In March 1982, local government queries were raised and it was pointed out that plants vary. Some plants do not grow well, whereas others grow considerably and become far more valuable. A range of increase for each plant and shrub from about 10 per cent. to 40 per cent. was settled. Those that had done well would have an increase of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. and those that had not done as well would have an increase of only 10 per cent.
Each year, the value of the small stock grew until it reached £570,000 in 1985. I am surprised that it did not happen earlier, but at that stage, several people began to find that a surprising figure. The nursery seemed to be a real profit centre. If it was doing so well, why did it not abandon the rigorous control of discretionary purchases and spend a little more on armchairs, desks or whatever? It was then decided that there should be an independent valuation, because £570,000 seemed such a large amount.

An independent valuer was called in and valued the £570,000 of stock at £45,000. The problem was that people thought that the nursery had done well, but it had not.
The report says that the local government auditor was informed about the need for a more realistic stock valuation system. That was in place until the production of the figure of £570,000.
In question 4196 I asked:
As a result of this over-assessment of the value of the stock what decisions were made which should not have been made? Was any expenditure incurred, for example, because they thought they were doing so well in making substantial sums of money?
Obviously, that must affect the way in which the operation was carried out.
In the end, because of the difficulty of separating the fresh purchases from the old, it was decided to abandon the scheme. Sadly, people were dismissed. If it had been properly managed, it might well have been cost-effective.
In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report, we say:
It is clear that if at any time the Division directly responsible for the nursery had taken stock, or if the Finance Division had properly verified the figure for stock, the disparity between book and actual values would have immediately become apparent. We asked therefore why both Divisions failed to carry out these essential procedures and the Department replied that neither Division had sufficient knowledge of what was involved and that it could neither excuse nor justify these failures.
In paragraph 5 we say:
We are astonished".
That is a word that I cannot ever recall using. The Public Accounts Committee's language is always restrained. We have a schedule of adjectives which has never gone as far as that. We understate. We are not putting people in the dock in order to sentence them to some horrible end; we are trying to improve the administration. That is crucial. Our task is to hear the evidence, not to indulge in attacking witnesses as they come before us.
I am reminded very much of the congressional system of inquiry, which many of us will have seen, where the chairman bangs his gavel and says that he has heard enough. It is easy to intimidate witnesses. That is not what we try to do. We try to discover the facts and to improve the administration. Nevertheless, in this case we had to say:
We are astonished by these admissions and the confirmation that those responsible failed over a period of many years to carry out their fundamental duties.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The first parliamentary question that I tabled on my election here was on that very matter and I have a growing—if I may use that word—interest in it. The reality is that the dogs in the streets of Northern Ireland, even those visiting some of the trees, knew that something was wrong. That was drawn to the attention of Ministers here and the Housing Executive board, yet the matter was not finally dealt with until it was considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and that aspect of the matter still disturbs me.

Mr. Sheldon: I accept that the matter should have come to the Public Accounts Committee much earlier. It was only because of the Housing Executive's failure to undertake the sort of work that it should have done that prevented that happening.
In paragraph 8 we say:


The C&amp;AG referred not only to indadequate provision for plant deaths and the appreciation of non-existent stock as causes of the deficiency, but also to the unsatisfactory state of the nursery's stock records"—
which does not surprise me—
and the lack of control over the issue, receipt and custody of stock.
We go on to say in paragraph 10:
We deplore the absence of basic, essential controls on the issue, receipt and custody of the nursery's stock and we note that it is probable that further, unquantified losses were incurred because the nursery was not cost-effective.
This is not a large sum of money in the national scene, but we often consider smaller matters because they highlight the way in which we should approach such problems.
In the end, because of the difficulty of separating the fresh purchases from the old, the sale price was much less than the valuation of £45,000. We could not find out exactly, because the records were not as good as they should have been. I went into the matter diligently, because I thought that it would be useful to discover how much of that £570,000 was returned in the sale. It was almost certainly less than £30,000, and it may even have been as little as £3,000. I have no knowledge of that, but it was certainly much less than the valuation, that we know.
The nursery has now closed down, but what happened is a warning not to ignore any aspects of one's work, even though they may not be central. They must all be made subject to the same kind of control as the larger and more important areas.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he agree that, since the Comptroller and Auditor-General does not get the books until much later, he does an excellent job in the circumstances, and that that supports the argument that we have sought to lay before the House—that a Select Committee is needed to scrutinise at an early stage the different Departments' work in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Sheldon: I have no comment to make on that. My task is to take the policy for granted and to ensure that it is carried out in the most efficient, effective and economic manner.
That is our report, and I am sure that it was well received by those who wanted to see the problems of Northern Ireland brought into line with the situation in the United Kingdom. However, Northern Ireland is not alone in such misjudgments. I am sorry to say that we have a fair number, some of which I shall refer to.
The most important aspect of this is that we do not view with great pleasure the examination of matters which come before us where it is felt that inadequate action has been taken. As I said before, our task is to improve matters for the future.

Mr. Michael Latham: The right hon. Gentleman may be about to stress this, but in view of what he said about the Committee's careful language, which is absolutely right, it should be placed on record that the accounting officer himself in this case said, "They are appalling cases."

Mr. Sheldon: There is no question about that. We had the full support of the Departments in Northern Ireland. They learn a great deal from our work. A good accounting

officer will usually welcome our investigation in so far as it justifies the action that he or she would wish to see in improving their own financial management. It is the kind of co-operation which we most importantly welcome, because it is that which leads to action being taken. If that were not the case, I am sure that we should be more extreme in our language. Government Departments have an interest in trying to improve the effective use of public expenditure; that is why they co-operate with us even though we may disagree, as we do strongly in a number of aspects.
The first paragraph of our first report 1989–90 entitled "Financial problems at universities" says:
Following reductions in Government grant in the early 1980s, our predecessors in Session 1985–86 noted that continued financial constraints were expected to present universities with serious problems. This underlined the importance of sound financial management and the need for a review of the responsibilities of the University Grants Committee".
In paragraph 2(a), we say:
We are greatly concerned at the serious financial mismanagement at University College, Cardiff in the period up to 1987. The breakdown of financial control, the attitude of those charged with proper stewardship of its funds and the disregard of proper procedures brought a major academic institution to the verge of insolvency.
That is most serious.
Paragraph 2(d) states:
We believe strongly, however, that the UGC should have taken earlier and more positive action to identify, appraise and tackle the financial difficulties at Cardiff. They were well aware of the difficulties facing universities as a result of grant levels; and indeed they assured our predecessors that they would be discussing with universities exactly the sort of staffing problems that lay at the heart of Cardiff's troubles. We consider that they took too passive a role in concluding that they were unable to challenge the College's view that no staff reductions were necessary and that there would be no consequent financial problems.
In paragraph 2(e), we stated:
We believe that the UGC's information systems left them too much in the dark about developing problems at universities; and we are concerned that their failure to take decisive action in the initial stages allowed the financial and other problems at the College to become more deeply entrenched and added to the eventual cost of rescuing it from insolvency. We also consider that the UGC made an error of judgment in not reporting these problems to Parliament in their annual survey at the first available opportunity.
In paragraph 2(g), we stated:
we welcome the establishment of the new Universities Funding Council, with an expanded role, a more positive remit and greater powers and responsibilities.
In paragraph 2(h) we state:
We expect the Council quickly to build up the planning arrangements, financial management and information systems, and the capacity for monitoring and analysis which are essential for the effective allocation and oversight of the grants to universities.
That is really the point. We found that there was a failure to get the financial management and information systems into place. There was not the monitoring or analysis that we believed was essential for the proper allocation and oversight of grants to universities.
We understand the severe problems and the reason why the Universities Funding Council involved itself rather less than it might have done. The council was conscious of the need for academic interference to be reduced to a minimum, but there is a difference between that and having responsibilities to ensure that universities are financially solvent and financially able to deal with their affairs. The council should be aware of that.
What is the point of a Universities Funding Council which does not know when a university is in trouble before that arises? After all, the council is giving grants and handing out money to universities. It should not hand out money without knowing what universities are doing.
In a subsequent investigation, the report of which has been published but is not before us today because we have not had a Government reply, it is clear that the funding task of the Universities Funding Council must be tied in with a knowledge of what is happening so that it at least can take action and perhaps tell a university that it needs more money or that it should be taking advice on how to reduce its commitments. We know that universities are in a tight financial position; speaking as an Opposition Member, I would have something to say about that, but that is not the role of the Public Accounts Committee. It is up to the Universities Funding Council to take the requisite action. We will consider that report in due course.
I want now to consider the sixth report of the Public Accounts Committee, entitled "Sale of Rover Group PLC to British Aerospace PLC". We have produced an interim report and we have not dealt with all the matters. We learned that, in 1975, Rover was facing bankruptcy and was taken into public ownership. In August 1988, the Government sold the 99·8 per cent. which they held to British Aerospace for £150 million after provision of £547 million in the light of Government debt and investment programme.
We examined the Department of Trade and Industry and its financial advisers, Baring Brothers, and we have produced an interim report which deals simply with the facts as we saw them. We are going to set out our conclusions and recommendations in a further report. All I intend to do now is to pose a number of the questions to which we hope to append conclusions after the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has completed its examination and we have taken the matter further. The questions are posed from our interim report.
Why was there not acceptance of competition to get the best price? That is obviously a matter of particular importance for the Public Accounts Committee, whose task is to get the best price in all privatisations or sales of Government assets so as to protect the taxpayer. There were four expressions of interest to control the Rover assets—from Ford, Volkswagen, Lonrho and Melton Medes. We asked the DTI why it decided that there would be no competition and that British Aerospace would have certain advantages at the beginning in examining and deciding whether it wanted to take the company over for a negotiated price.
We asked why
the threat posed by competition more than outweighed the benefits of a limited competitive tender of the kind that they and Barings had initially been in favour of.
The Department replied that it
recognised the advantage of competition in giving a benchmark against which to measure prices, but had concluded that a public auction would be damaging to the Company.
On that basis, we examined the Department in our taking of evidence. So far we, have no conclusions; I simply have questions and the Department's answers, which will lead to further questioning and conclusions later.
We asked Sir Peter Gregson, the permanent secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry:
why did you not follow up the four other expressions of interest? There were four other companies that were interested

in acquiring the Rover Group. Why did you not follow them up? … In the beginning you were prepared to take them whenever they came, but at the end you were only prepared to take them if the negotiations failed. There is a clear difference over time. Why was this? … How could a firm offer be made if you were not giving them information on which to base those offers?
The House may recall that the information was not given to the other companies in the same way that it was given to British Aerospace.
Sir Peter Gregson replied:
A company could have made an offer on the basis of publicly available information. If a company did not choose to do that and wished to have the kind of confidential information which could only be obtained in a negotiating situation then that company would have to wait until the exclusive negotiations had come to an end.
We asked about Mr. Baring's judgment about that, and he said in response to question No. 108:
If we had been concerned simply to get the best price and if we had not been concerned with the possible risk of failure, if we were perhaps slightly less cautious than the Government appeared to have been in this case, then we would certainly have gone for the limited competitive tender.
I asked:
So to get the best price, competitive tender was the route?
The reply was:
Yes, but it involved some risk.
That was the Government's view, and it will be examined further in due course.
At question 114, I asked about the valuation. The valuation was very important. We were concerned that an up-to-date, comprehensive valuation was not required. I said:
But it was not a comprehensive valuation of all the assets and the earning potential of the Rover Group.
Sir Peter Gregson replied:
I believe that the important consideration here was not the breakup value of this company but the profitability of the company. There was ample evidence of that. There really was not a great deal of point in assessing the value of the plant and sites in very great detail if the whole purpose of the disposal was that the plant and sites should continue on a productive basis.
I said:
So you had neither competition, nor valuation and you went into negotiation with those elements lacking?
Sir Peter Gregson replied:
I would not accept that there was no valuation.
That was the problem. We have seen it in respect of several sales of assets. Perhaps one is selling an asset at a value which is subsequently worth more than one thought at the time. That has occurred again and again. One of the big advantages that we said that the Government should have was put originally by the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) who used to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee and is now Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission. It played a part in almost every examination of the sale of public assets.
The hon. Member for Horsham asked why we were selling them all at one go. That somebody wishes to sell assets has nothing to do with the Public Accounts Committee. We are interested only in getting the best price available. We said, "If you sell them in tranches and you get it wrong, you may get it right subsequently." I instance, of course, the sale of gilts. At the beginning of the year, the figures are comparable, because the amount of money that the Government raise from the sale of gilts is roughly comparable to the amount of money that they are getting from the sale of their assets. I had dealings with the Government broker as I had certain responsibilities at one


stage in my time at the Treasury. At the beginning of the year, one goes to the Government broker and discusses what is to be sold and for how much—£100 million, for example—and what sort of coupon there will be. It is planned through out the year. One sees how the market is reacting, so one sells.
That is not the way in which these sales are conducted. We might have thought that the best way to do it would be to obtain somebody with appropriate expertise. If we are to embark on the sale of assets, we should have someone with special expertise rather than the ad hoc arrangements that were made. However, that has gone now. We need to think in terms of trying to get the best price. If we fail, at least some further amounts may be obtained later. One of the problems is that the Treasury likes to know at the beginning how much it will get throughout the year. That is a limiting factor. It is much more important to protect the taxpayer, and that is obviously the Committee's task.
Another aspect is clawbacks. I shall refer to them in respect of the Royal Ordnance plc. If one sells something, it could be difficult to get a proper valuation. I understand the difficulties, particularly in valuing land. At least if there is a clause that we can share—not take over—in the unexpected sums of money that might be realised, which is also important, we can protect the public interest.
Some people say, "You will not be able to do that easily, because it will depress the value of the shares." Public money is different from private money. Somebody in a private company can take chances and so on, but when it comes to dealing with public money, there must be confidence that one is getting the best price for assets. There is an obligation upon all of us—not just the Public Accounts Committee—to make sure that the public feel that they are not being ripped off. Sometimes we might have a worse deal as a result, but the public will at least know that we have tried to get the best value for that money. That is crucial.
A lot of nonsense has been spoken about the leak of the confidential memorandum. It was assumed that we would always keep it quiet. The fact that a Department asks that a matter before the Public Accounts Committee be kept confidential may not mean that it will stay confidential. We investigate. We call witnesses before us, and they must give reasons why it should be confidential. If we think that the reasons are not right, we release it untouched. If we think that there is justification, we may decide to exclude certain parts of it. That is our duty or obligation. There may be serious reasons for the taxpayers' interests why certain matters should be confidential. The media condemnation was unjustified. We never reached that kind of decision—they never came before us to make that decision. It would be wrong to decide to release something before we even hear the case.
Very few matters that we take in private are not released in whole. Those that are kept back are usually to do with defence, the date of implementation of a new kind of weapon, cost and so on. There are just a few asterisks to meet that. In general, we are very open. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) will recall that all our sittings used to be in private. It is only recently that we

have had the strong view that our sittings should be open, because we want to examine openly the matters that come before us.
I now refer to the 1989–90 Session, 13th report, "Ministry of Defence: Further Examination of the Sale of Royal Ordnance plc". In April 1987, the sale of Royal Ordnance plc to British Aerospace was concluded. Rather unusually, I should like to quote from the 48th report, Session 1987–88, because we had our preliminary investigation into the sale of Royal Ordnance plc then. That report deals with the price that was realised, £190 million, and the sale included land at Waltham Abbey and Enfield, which was sold to British Aerospace without any clawback provision for the taxpayer.
At paragraph 3(v), we said:
We are concerned that, prior to deciding on the sale of RO, the MoD did not themselves explore the possibility of redevelopment at Waltham Abbey and Enfield or obtain an alternative valuation of these sites based on the assumption that their redevelopment might be approved in the future. We note that BAe could make a substantial gain on their sale or development".
That was before we knew anything about a valuation of Waltham Abbey or Enfield. It was without the advantage of hindsight. The Committee has the enormous advantage of hindsight. My colleagues and I try very hard to put ourselves in the place of the witness at the time the decision was made. However, this was something we did before, so there was no hindsight at all.
We said:
We note that BAe could make a substantial gain on their sale or development without benefits accruing to the taxpayer beyond the sale price paid by BAe. We recommend that in any similar sales in the future, any feasible planning permissions likely to increase property values should be obtained before offers are invited.
That is of enormous importance. That aspect will arise again and again in respect of land. Values of up to £450 million were attributed to the sites. We found that values were substantially less than that, but there should have been a much bigger gain to the Government as a result of that sale.
I should like to give some examples of the questions that we asked. The late Ian Gow provided a splendid example which many of us well recall with both pleasure and sadness. However, I should like to quote from a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North. We were trying to establish what sort of valuation had been made of those two north London sites but were not getting very far, because we encountered all sorts of complications.
One of the most dramatic moments in the investigations carried out by the Public Accounts Committee came when my hon. friend declaimed in a rather more uncommon way than is usual. I should explain that each hon. Member now has only 15 minutes in which to make his or her contribution—nowadays, it is always "his" contribution. Our Committee meetings are so well attended and my colleagues' examinations are so thorough that we must all be limited in that way. It did not happen in the past, but it does now.
My hon. Friend was frustrated at not receiving a crucial answer about the method of valuation. Finally, he banged his hand on the table in a way that we can all remember and said—I shall not attempt to imitate his accent although one or two of my hon. Friends from Scotland might be able to do so—


I only have 15 minutes, Sir Michael. I am going to ask you again. We have heard that potential use value … is different from use value … I am asking you, in the context of planning permission … whether you carried out a potential use value valuation on the land'
Sir Michael replied:
We did not seek a valuation on conjectures about planning permission and the particular form that that use might take.
My recollection of that answer is slightly different. I thought that my hon. Friend got the answer, "No," but perhaps it was elaborated on subsequently. One's memory is always a little subject to uncertainty. The important thing was that, in difficult circumstances, we got an answer to that question.
Our report refers to the role of the Treasury. It is interesting to note that, in April 1988, a year after the sale to British Aerospace in April 1987, the Treasury issued new guidelines to Departments on procedures relating to the disposal of surplus land. Our report states:
These guidelines state that with potential for development should normally be sold with the benefit of planning permission; but where this is inappropriate because of delays and uncertainties about the planning position, it may be appropriate to seek to secure from the purchaser any increase in value attributable to the grant of planning permission after disposal terms have been agreed.
That is exactly what we said before we knew about the failure to achieve for the taxpayer some of the moneys that we thought should accrue to him.
Paragraph 35 states:
we consider that the Department might have been in a better position to evaluate the bids received if they had carried out a further revaluation as at about 1986;
The value of land was changing rapidly at that time. The paragraph continues:
invited bids for the Company both with and without a clawback provision; and if they had obtained an estimate of potential development values, particularly for Waltham Abbey and Enfield (even though this would have been conjectural) before deciding whether any special measures, such as clawback provisions, were necessary to protect the taxpayers' interest. In the Committee's view, consideration of a clawback provision for the Waltham Abbey and Enfield sites would have been prudent and need not have resulted in continuing Departmental involvement in the business decisions of the Company.
I am pleased that some account has been taken of our views on this matter. We look forward to seeing the guidelines implemented.
Paragraph 24 of the Treasury minute that deals with this matter states:
The aim should be to secure, in a cost-effective manner, an assessment of both the existing use and, where relevant, the potential development values of property.
We welcome that reaction.
I refer now to "Financial Management in the National Health Service" and to the 16th report of Session 1989–90. We spend £12 billion on the national health service, which has 14 regional authorities and 190 district authorities. We have looked at the national health service fairly extensively in the past few years, in a manner that we did not previously. I know that several Committee colleagues welcome that, and play a useful and constructive part in our examinations.
I refer to one or two of our past examinations to show the range of our interests. In our 50th report of the 1987–88 Session, which considered operating theatres, we found that only 50 to 60 per cent. of our operating theatres are in use during the working week—I am not talking about evenings or weekends—and that was at a time when people

were waiting up to two years for certain operations. With one or two exceptions, most of us are non-specialists, so that came as a bit of a surprise, especially in the light of the bottleneck in the operating theatres. We found out why it was happening and posed some useful questions to try to improve matters for the future.
I know from a recent press report that the Government have taken action on consultants to ensure that their services are properly employed. One problem with consultants is that their terms of appointment are set by the regional health authority, whereas their practice and their work is in the hospital.
Our 18th report dealt with hospital building. We discovered that it can take up to 15 years to build a hospital. A major problem with public sector construction is the enormous amount of time that it takes to get things done. I was in New York city this spring and had the impossible recollection that its hospital had been built in only one year. I thought that that must be wrong and that it was just a failure of memory. I therefore went to see how long it had actually taken to build it and discovered that it had taken only just over 50 weeks to construct from ground to finish in 1931. That is remarkable.
Of course, that is not a typical example, but it shows how far short our construction is falling if it can take 15 years for us to build a hospital, and there is then the delay in commissioning it and getting patients in. Something is seriously wrong.
Our 40th report of 1987–88 considered estate management. We found a number of crumbling buildings and a general failure to repair them, which in the end costs far more. However, more important than that was our discovery that central management in the national health service had tried to establish the condition of its estates by sending out a questionnaire to its 191 district health authorities. Only 113 replied; that means that one third did not even bother. What is the function of a management board if it does not even get answers to queries?
This is a most serious matter. It made us realise that something must be fundamentally wrong. If the central management of the national health service is failing to get the kind of replies to which one would think any such organisation should be entitled, the chief executive cannot discover that which he has a right to know.

Mr. Michael Shersby: On the interesting point about the value of the national health service estate, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that asking about the value of a department's estate is what I might call the Public Accounts Committee's $64 question? When considering the evidence, it struck me as extraordinary that the national health service does not know the value of its own estate when, from all quarters, one hears about the pressure to build more hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that we discovered several buildings capable of renovation in areas where there was pressure for new building. Could he say something about that, because I found it a fascinating insight into what was going on?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was a fascinating insight into the failure to know something about one's own business. If one is trying to be a chief executive of a body, one should know something about the business involved. There is no question but that we have brought about—I should say we are bringing


about; it is too early to say that much has been accomplished yet—some improvement. We saw Mr. Duncan Nichol on those matters.
One report to which I refer frequently is that on premature retirement in the national health service. The Government decided as a matter of policy—it is open to them to do so and we do not question it—that the administration of the NHS was too top-heavy. Quite rightly, they said that it was necessary to bring about premature retirements and give redundancy pay to reduce the number of executives in the NHS. That failed to meet all our objectives.
Ever since then, in 1983, whenever someone comes forward with a plan, scheme or programme of any kind I like to know the objective at the beginning. I want people to quantify the objective as much as possible. Some objectives cannot be quantified too much, but I want it to be quantified as much as possible. I ask people when they are going to achieve the objective. At the end of the period of the plan, I want to compare the objective with the achievement. At the same time, there must be a monitoring system so that, if something disastrous is going on, it can be brought to a stop or changed. That is of crucial importance.
In the case of premature retirements in the NHS, it was not known how many people were likely to obtain or opt for retirement. We found that, in one regional authority, about 340—I am speaking from memory—opted for premature retirement. In another authority of comparable size, only one tenth of that number—25 or 30—opted for premature retirement. At the end of the exercise, it was not possible to say how much money had been saved. Nor could we be sure that some of the people who had taken early retirement had not been re-employed in the authority. We knew that some had been re-employed, but we did not know whether some had been re-employed by the same health authority. We strongly suspected that that was the case, but we could not prove it so we gave people the benefit of the doubt.
In such cases we must be sure that we have proper management and that we align budgets with need rather better. Our task is set out in paragraph 14 of the report:
We attach great importance to timely and effective financial monitoring. We note the recent improvements made in financial reporting and expect the better flow of information to lead to tighter budgetary control throughout the NHS.
We welcome the Treasury minute on that. We know that obviously there is a shortage of suitable staff in the higher levels of the NHS, and we wish Duncan Nichol well in recruiting such people. We hope that there will be some improvements in the proper control of the whole of the NHS.
I now come to the 31st report of the Committee entitled "Quality Control of Road and Bridge Construction", Session 1989–90. We spend about £1 billion each year on motorways, trunk roads and bridges. Remedial work is carried out using concrete or bitumen. It is interesting that we still do not know whether concrete is a better substance than bitumen for road surfaces. I understand that certain other countries made that decision long ago. One would have thought that, with the help of the Transport and

Road Research Laboratory and other bodies, we might have come to a firmer conclusion than we have reached so far.
There is a relationship between the cost of building a road and the cost of building including the premature repairs and traffic delays. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of our report, we point out one of the major problems:
Quite apart from the misery, inconvenience and frustration caused to the travelling public by the need for largely unforeseen and unplanned remedial work, we are not satisfied that the Department have taken proper account of the true costs involved. Whilst premature maintenance costs need to be considered in the context of total construction costs, we believe that it is distorting the argument for the Department to suggest that the only alternative to their present course is to try to eliminate all risk of any remedial expenditure.
I do not argue with that. We say that when one builds a road one must take into account the cost of putting it right. I regret that I received the minute containing the Treasury's response only two days ago. We have examined these matters for a long time, yet it was brought to my attention only yesterday.
In yesterday's Daily Telegraph I noticed an adverse comment on the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I must say that I regretted that. We normally leave it to the Treasury Minister to respond and it is very rare that action is taken in advance of his response. The article shows that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport anticipated the Financial Secretary. It pointed out that
the vast majority of roads do not give rise to unexpected problems.
That is obvious. It is not our task to look at things that go right. Our task is to see whether we can improve things that go wrong. I am sorry that it was a Treasury minute; I could have understood if it had been a departmental notification. I have not had time to go into it as thoroughly as I would wish.
Paragraph 148 of the minute points out:
traffic delay costs could be smaller when maintenance is premature since traffic flows will be lower … Costs and delays inevitably arise from maintenance,
If one talks about a "premature" repair, one implies that the repair should have come later. If I have a repair done to my washing machine within six months, presumably it means that I will not need to have it repaired later on. However, the point is, "Was the washing machine right at the beginning?" The question is, "Was the road right at the beginning?" If it was not, how much extra would it have cost to get it right? I am sorry that we had that item.
Even though the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said several things about the Public Accounts Committee with which I do not agree, I was pleased to note that the Treasury minute goes a long way towards meeting our objections. I welcome that. In paragraph 146 it says that the Department will
introduce as soon as practicable an improved and computerised reporting system to cover all cases of defects and premature maintenance.
I welcome that. It is what we asked for and we have got it.
Paragraph 147 says:
The principle of 'whole-life' costing is being introduced in setting highway design and construction standards—this takes account of both forecast maintenance and traffic delay costs.
I welcome that.
Paragraph 151 says:


The introduction of a five year rolling programme … is assisting in these tasks. Assessment of the whole life cost of roads and bridges will also help to identify the cost implications of alternative timings for maintenance.
I welcome that.
Paragraph 155 says:
Amendments to the Specifications for Highway Works are being introduced to secure improvements in the construction of concrete roads.
I welcome that.
Paragraph 162 says:
The Department accepts the Committee's view that it must further seek to improve its effectiveness in managing this area of its business.
That refers to poor workmanship and sanctions to deal with it.
The minute also states that the Department of Transport
has therefore appointed an independent consultant to carry out a wide-ranging review which will take into account the Committee's views and recommendations. The Department is also introducing new methods of selecting and appointing consultants who supervise its contracts.
We welcome that.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary is unaware of the role of the PAC. It displays a unanimity of view and it is trying hard to improve the quality of the administration of the Department. We are not sniping at it, but we are trying to seek definite improvements. I am pleased to note that the Treasury minute accepts that.
Some might argue that the improvements made were already in train and indeed a great many of our recommendations are accepted even before we put them. As soon as a Department knows that we are going to investigate, it carries out an investigation itself, which is extremely valuable. We do not try to score points about that; we could, but that is not our job. If someone takes action before we report on the matters that we are likely to report on, we welcome that. We seek to encourage that. I hope that that practice will always prevail.
We all suffer greatly because of problems on our roads. On Sunday, when I came down the M6, I encountered four major roadworks, none of which was less than five miles long. Obviously, I am very aware of the importance of repairs.
The task of the Committee is to deal with the various reports produced. We get a great deal of pleasure from the fact that we are able to deal with them competently and adequately. I could mention one or two other reports at some length—for example, that on the Crown prosecution service concerning decisions to continue prosecutions which vary throughout the country. There was also a report on hospital buildings and some of the associated problems, with which I have dealt in part only, as well as a report on the control and management of the Metropolitan police estate. That is an important report, which demonstrates that estate management should be introduced, as it should be in many other areas of our activities.
There were also reports on the National Seed Development Council and the failure to receive the proper sale proceeds.
It is important to mention the publicity services for Government Departments. I welcome the Treasury minute that dealt with that and I am pleased to note that the Treasury has accepted the view about dealing with such publicity to ensure that there should be clear objectivity by

Departments when preparing it. That important issue was clarified and the message has gone out to all Departments, which we welcome.
Once again, I should like to thank my colleagues for bearing with me during the long evenings we spent together. I look forward to continuing our efforts on behalf of the taxpayer—that, after all, is our interest.

Sir Michael Shaw: As always on these occasions it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge, in common with the entire Committee, the tremendous work done by our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). Normally on these occasions we refer to one another as honourable friends to demonstrate the unanimity about which my right hon. Friend has rightly spoken.
At the outset, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that Opposition Members are all too briefly with us as they move onwards and upwards. What happens to those former members of the Public Accounts Committee who must be feeling the push from underneath? Will they recirculate and come back to us before long? We all work as a good team as we pick up on each other's points and we form an effective questioning force under what has always been the very capable and tactful leadership of our Chairman, for which we thank him.
It would be remiss of me not to recall the sad loss of the former Member for Eastbourne, Mr. Ian Gow. He was a wonderful member of our Committee. He had an extremely shrewd brain and although it was not always immediately apparent, he was very kind. Some of the ways in which he put even the most casual question, however, made an accounting officer give it serious consideration. I imagine even the lightest question from him was regarded by such an accounting officer as one of threatening importance. Alas, we shall have him with us no longer.
It is important to remember that the Committee has helped to bring about a number of significant changes in Government accounting and organisation. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has already mentiond internal auditing and non-executive directors and it is also important to remember the "next steps" agencies, the importance of value for money as well as targeting jobs and responsibilities within Departments. In all those areas the PAC, along with other Committees of the House—let us not forget them as well as the work undertaken by Government Departments and their attitude to our work, which has always been welcome—has made a significant contribution.
I first joined the PAC in about 1973. I did not stay long, but I came back in 1979 and I have been a member ever since. I have seen many changes in the way in which we conduct our proceedings. In the old days, the questioning was largely undertaken by the Chairman—we were lucky if we put a question in the entire two hours of the sitting. The reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General were fairly sparse and in no way comparable to the present ones that form the basis of our inquiries. Today the effect of the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of our reports within Government circles is much greater than it was. Certainly the Comptroller and Auditor General does more preparation than in the past. The same can be said of the Committee members before we go to our meetings.
Although it is not for me to say, this might be the last time that I take part in these annual debates as I do not intend to stand at the next election. In that context, I hope that I am allowed to say that the standing and importance of the PAC has never been higher.
I echo the thanks that our Chairman gave to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Bourne, and his staff. Without their help and comprehensive, thorough reports, our work would be impossible. I welcome the opportunity that we now have to go along to the National Audit Office to discuss matters of particular importance when they arise. While we retain our independence, our work results in great benefit for all.
I have said in earlier debates that the greatly improved Comptroller and Auditor General reports that we now receive, the greater thoroughness of our questioning and presentation of reports and the fact that our proceedings are normally open to the public give greater impact to our work generally and to our reports in particular. Publicity concerning the various issues arises when our reports are published. That is an advantage over the old system, when our meetings were held in secret.
The matters that we discuss are important and must receive attention immediately. So as we deliberate subject by subject, the media deal with each item, instead of having to deal with an assortment of subjects arising in one day's debate. By that means we can have wider influence than used to be the case.
Looking back over the year, I select for comment two items, one of which was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that of Northern Ireland. I have always had much sympathy for those with responsibility in that area. The conditions under which they operate cannot be regarded as in any way normal. The physical unrest and deep sectarian divisions create problems beyond my experience. But, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, danger lies in the fact that we may cease to apply, in considering the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, the same judgment as we apply to reports emanating from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Whatever sympathy we may have, because of the problems of those working in Northern Ireland, we should do them a disservice if we failed to deal with the matters that they bring to us with the same critical eye as we give to other issues. We owe that duty not only to those who live and work there but to those who have invested, and others who hope to invest, large sums in Northern Ireland. Remember, the object is to try to make things work there as smoothly and normally as possible. That will happen only if we set the highest standards of inspection to the reports that come before us.
Regrettably, some extremely sad reports come to us. Occasionally one tends to say, "Never mind, it is Northern Ireland." That is the wrong attitude to take. We must examine the issues and say, "Let us try to get things right." From the reports that have come to us from the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the witnesses who appear before us, it is clear that all concerned are trying to improve matters. I believe that it will not be long before we see improvements. That will be justification for the seriousness with which we tackle the issues.
One is bound to feel sad when considering the report on, say, roads and the system of stocktaking the stores scattered throughout Northern Ireland. It was clear that the system of stocktaking was inadequate. Happily, the notes that we are receiving, particularly following the cross-questioning of witnesses that I conducted, show that the stores are under much better control. The system generally has been much revised, with the internal auditor now seeing that reports go direct to the top man rather than to an intermediary. Because of more effective stock control, less stock is required. That is always a good sign. If stocks can be reduced, that is a sign that the business is being run more efficiently.
As I say, many of the reports are depressing. Particularly depressing was the report about the plant nursery, and I shall comment on only a few points about which I asked questions. Obviously, no system should be allowed to continue if nobody is taking stock and stocks are increasing year by year. That way lies disaster. Indeed, had the organisation been in private hands, disaster would have occurred more quickly. One must express worry when Mr. Murray, the auditor, said that it had never entered their heads that people were not taking stock. He described that as "a fundamental error." The mind boggles at the thought that an auditor did not check to see whether somebody was taking stock. We find such fundamental problems arising time and again.
I hope that I am not being optimistic when I say that, as a result of our inquiries, things are beginning to improve. Indeed, we must proceed on that hope, just as I hope that officials are proceeding on the conviction that we shall continue to make inquiries into their activities.
My second point about Northern Ireland concerns the land registry. Although a serious lapse has been evident, we can learn from it in other areas. The land registry was set up and the same fees charged for a long time. A witness said:
Fees were not revised in the intervening years because it was mistakenly believed that the registry was operating at a surplus, when in fact it was not covering its costs.
Why was it not covering its costs? The answer to that question was terrifyingly frank. We were told, in effect, that there had just been a mistake, and they were all sorry about it. It is terrifying to think that those who filled in the accounts did not realise that they should have been adding sums for headquarters costs. That state of affairs continued for a long time.
I cross-questioned witnesses on that issue because, although it was a basic error, it covered a significantly wider sphere. If an agency is established—the land registry, although not an agency, was a type of agency —one must consider the fees and departmental expenses. That is where the wider sphere comes in. In this case, those making up the accounts were correct, except that they did not add a big sum for departmental expenses, remembering that those involved at headquarters were anxious, for obvious reasons, to spread their expenses over as many branches as possible. The differences were enormous. When we cross-questioned the witnesses about the expenses of headquarters that could be relied on as being part of the land registry, Mr. Murray said:
In normal circumstances I would not spend much time overlooking the land registry".
His assistant, Mr. Mackenzie, said that he spent perhaps 5 per cent. of his time on the land registry. Look at it as we would, we could not see that the enormous difference in


the cost of overheads that had been missed out was justified by any facts concerning the services rendered by head office. I hope that that is now being examined more cautiously; there is a formula, but I doubt that it is accurate.
The other report that I wish to mention is "The Next Steps Initiative". This is a first-class initiative, and I am greatly encouraged by the fact that it is being brought in carefully—at times slowly, perhaps, but that is better than rushing into it without getting it right; big costs may be involved if we do not get it right.
The Public Accounts Committee said in paragraph 3(v) of its conclusions:
We note that, consistent with the Government's priorities for Next Steps, the agencies established so far were set more demanding financial and operational targets accompanied by additional flexibilities on financial matters and staff and pay to enhance their ability to operate more efficiently … We agree with the conclusion of the C &amp; AG that, if continued, this early demonstrated commitment on the part of the parent and central departments to the thrust of the initiative augurs well for the success of Next Steps".
I entirely agree.
The example of the cross-questioning in the Northern Ireland report makes me wonder whether we are being careful enough to ensure that, in certain cases, we are not simply creating another department to be looked after by the Department itself. I put that question to the representative of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service—what a mouthful that is—and asked him,
to deal with the problem of what has been described as the people back in the departments syndrome. The responsibility still lies with the Minister for the agencies so far as Parliament is concerned.
(Mr. Kemp) Yes, correct.
So he will want his civil servants to brief him on statements, on questions and anything relating to an agency.
(Mr. Kemp) That is right.
That means to say therefore that the Department back home will tend to formulate a staff that will double bank the agency so that they can get the information from the agency and use it and check and put forward to the Minister.
(Mr. Kemp) I hope very much not.
I hope not too. It has been admitted that there is an interface, but if it is not carefully guarded, that interface can grow and there can be additional expenses.
Talking of expenses, departments such as town halls have a lot of fixed expenses to meet. I have noticed that the more that they can feed them out to their various departments and agencies, the more they are prone to do so. That is why they do not like getting rid of them and turning them into private enterprise efforts: then they have fewer places in which to put their overheads. I trust that nothing of that sort would be allowed to happen in Departments of state.
I thank the Chairman of the Committee for all the work that he does, and for the enormous effort that he puts in. Above all, I thank my colleagues on the Committee for the way in which they try genuinely to examine the problems, rather than seeking to turn the process into a political fight. That is the essence of the Public Accounts Committee; long may it continue.

Mr. Alan Williams: As a new boy on the Committee, I shall make an extremely brief contribution, although I should add in my defence—in case I wander into a slightly longer speech than some might wish—that mine is a renewed rather than a new

membership. I was a member of the Committee as far back as 1966, when—as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw)—things were somewhat different.
What is still enjoyable, however, as the hon. Member for Scarborough pointed out, is the "consensus" way—if I may use the "in" term—in which the Committee members approach the task of analysis. It is significant that this is the first time since I became a member that we have sat in "confrontational" postures to discuss our work.
As a new Committee member, I already have my collection of yellow cards from our Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). However, let me say while I have his good will —for I see him smiling—that on one of his foreign tours he must have bought a Brussels watch: I think that it is operating on metricated minutes, which, as everyone knows, are far shorter than the imperial minutes on the watches of the other members of the Committee.
It is a matter of deep regret to all of us that our late friend and colleague Ian Gow is not able to take part in our discussions today. We all miss his charm, wit and friendliness, as well as the pungent relevance of what he had to say.
I am a living embodiment of the contention that all is onward and upward amongst Opposition members of the Committee. As an ex-industry Minister, I should have liked to take part in the discussions on Rover; but, as I was not a member of the Committee at that stage, it would have been rather presumptuous of me. I shall therefore save my comments until—as I hope—we examine the matter again.
I shall confine myself to two issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the criticism that he felt was due to the University Grants Committee for allowing University college, Cardiff to get into the predicament in which it now finds itself. The fact that the Committee has had to focus on that has to some extent made life more difficult for the new administration, which is having to cope with difficulties that it did not create. Its operations are clouded by the £4·4 million of repayable grant that had to be taken to ease the college out of difficulties that should never have existed in the first place.
It is to the credit of the new administration that, in the last year, it made a surplus of £4·8 million before provision to its capital account, and anticipates a surplus of £4·5 million this year. There has been a remarkable turnaround since we had our chance to discuss the fortunes of the college. Indeed, I am delighted to hear from the principal that about 25 per cent. of the £4·4 million has already been repaid, and that within six months the debt will be less than £3 million.
As well as dealing with the administrative consequences of the tragic circumstances in which it found itself, the college is making a massive inroad into the financial problems that it was forced to inherit. It is doing so against the background of rapid expansion. It is spending—not over-optimistically—£20 million on expansion, new building and the introduction of local area network facilities for the newly emerged University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology and Cardiff university college and it shows all the signs of completely shaking off the clouds that it inherited from the previous administration.
One interesting point, which was raised when I had discussions with the principal, was that when the Universities Funding Council makes its projections—colleagues at the National Audit Office may like to consider this and discuss it with the UFC—such discretion is used that comparisons between universities may be invalid or difficult to sustain. The principal said that that applied to the way in which inflation and staff costs are treated for future projections. University authorities may use their discretion about the precise formula that they use. The principal said that Cardiff used the UFC's most pessimistic scenario for its projections. He demonstrated the scale of such differences by saying that a 1 per cent. difference when assessing the situation means a £1·5 million difference in staff costs over five years, and a £3 million difference in overall costs in the same period.
If further analysis and reports to the Committee are to be undertaken, I hope that the UFC will consider whether it can make projections more consistent.
As a Welshman I wish to mention a matter which is of some local inconvenience to the people of Wales, and to those who choose to visit us or to come to Wales on business trips—the problems of the Severn bridge, which are mentioned in the report on roads and bridges. It will be no surprise to hon. Members to hear a Welshman say that we regard it as a sad saga.
The Friday before last people had to queue for more than three hours to cross the bridge in a westerly direction. It is not merely a question of inconvenience and cost. It upsets lorry schedules and it affects commercial drivers, who have limits placed on the hours that they are allowed to drive. However, there are wider implications than boring inconvenience. What is most galling is that the situation is unnecessary, and that came out in the report. I shall mention later the Treasury minute based on the report, but the National Audit Office report states clearly that in 1961, at the last minute, just as construction work on the foundations of the bridge was about to start, the Department of Transport introduced a new design. It was novel, and it presented new technological problems.
The NAO also said that, having introduced the new design, the Department proceeded to ignore its guidelines, procedures and standards. The Department did not carry out the calculations that would usually have been expected for a bridge design. Sadly, eight years later the bridge was showing signs of corrosion and fatigue.
I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee shares our bewilderment that, far from that being a source of hand-wringing in government, section 148 of the Treasury minute, to which I referred, states that, because corrosion was discovered early in the life of the bridge, it should have been a matter of great rejoicing. According to the Treasury, as there was less traffic crossing the bridge when the corrosion was first discovered, it was less of a problem than it would have been if it had been discovered later. The problem is that we have had to put up with it for the intervening 20 years, so I do not find the Treasury's argument very persuasive, and £17 million has had to be spent on the bridge.
The permanent secretary told us that much of the work done on the bridge was to strengthen it against wind

damage, damage from collision with a ship and to accommodate two and a half times the planned vehicle load.
As the National Audit Office report points out, 52·5 per cent. of that £17 million was used for remedial work and only a quarter was used for anything to do with strengthening or increasing the capacity of the bridge. Three quarters of the work that has had to be carried out on the bridge was remedial, and was due to what is described in the report as "design faults". So we are back where we started in 1961, when the Department of Transport at the last minute ignored standards, practices and procedures. The resultant design faults are still blighting the lives of motorists virtually 30 years on.
A fascinating coincidence—not lost on the users of the bridge—is that when the toll was increased recently, according to the report, the increase was needed to raise £50 million to carry out the balance of the work needed on the bridge. Tolls were increased to raise less money than had been demanded to carry out the remedial work. In other words, if the bridge had not needed remedial work, the tolls would not have had to be increased. The bridge needed remedial work because of design faults and it had those faults because the Department did not do its job. I find those circumstances hard to reconcile with the statement made in the House by a transport Minister who said:
The work is designed to upgrade the bridge for the future; it is not in any sense a reflection upon the quality of the original design of the bridge, which was built fully in accordance with the standards that then applied."—[Official Report, 27 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 543.]
One wonders who was briefing the poor man. I am sure that he would not have made that up, and I am sure that he would not readily have come to the House with a statement so contrary to the facts. No Minister wants to give the House information that he knows is blatantly incorrect.
As is revealed in the National Audit Office report, the people of Wales now face cost and inconvenience because a Ministry failed to do its job and to carry out its responsibilities in the way that everyone in Whitehall thought it was carrying them out.
The Treasury is hedging its bets in its response. Paragraph 158 states:
The Department found no evidence that standard checking procedures were not fully complied with"—
which is rather different from saying that they were, which is what one might have hoped that the Treasury would say.
It is difficult to be precise about events which happened over thirty years ago
that is even more dubious, it raises even more question marks—
but it was not necessarily practicable nor appropriate fully to apply standard procedures to an innovative design.
The NAO, therefore, has it all ways. There is no evidence that the Department did not carry out its normal procedures, though the Committee and the National Audit Office criticised it for not doing so. However, the Department virtually implies that the Treasury would have criticised it had it carried out the normal procedures because, it says, the normal procedures were not necessarily appropriate to the new design. Which posture is the Department adopting? Is it saying that it did carry out the normal procedures or that it did not and that the Treasury is glad that it failed to carry them out? We are left in the dark. All we know is that the motorist is still paying


for errors that need not and should not have arisen—errors which were the direct result of departmental incompetence, as demonstrated by the NAO report.
The House will understand the feeling of many people in Wales that they should not have to carry the cost of that incompetence and that it ought to be borne by the Department that imposed those errors upon them.

7 pm

Mr. Michael Morris: I, too, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of our Committee. I have been a Committee member for 11 years. During that time there have been two Chairmen, both of them Opposition Members who have brought a penetrating mind to that job. If this is to be the last public accounts debate for my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw)— though I personally doubt it—I should like to say to him that his acumen, too, has been of an extremely high order.
Two qualified accountants sit on the Public Accounts Committee. However intuitive and good the rest of us may be, it is important that colleagues with up-to-date experience of the latest accounting practices should sit on the Committee. My hon. Friend is not the youngest member of the Committee, so it is a great tribute to him when I say that he is very much up to date with what is happening and that it shows in his questioning of witnesses.
I ask the House to reflect on the Public Accounts Committee's role in the years ahead. Its role may change, as may the nature of this debate. The PAC is the watchdog of the legislature and the Administration. The Committee carries out its investigations after the event; it does not challenge the policies of the Government of the day. It accepts policy objectives and examines what has happened. That is a strong starting point. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, the Committee is greatly supported by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the staff of the National Audit Office. About 1,000 people, most of them highly qualified, are beavering away. In their green reports they produce material that, on the whole, is of a high standard. I hope that they will not mind me saying "on the whole". There have been instances when the reports have veered into policy areas and when they have gone too far towards producing policy proposals. As a person who has a modest area of woodland, I have to declare an interest when I say that when I look back at the forestry report and see the present level of planting it is obvious to me that it has been unduly influenced by some of the activities in north-east Scotland.
I am concerned about the nature of what I call the green reports—the National Audit Office reports—in the sense that they are, quite incorrectly, seen by the media as the work of the Public Accounts Committee. That is unfortunate. It is not clear to the public that the Public Accounts Committee still has to look at those reports and decide whether it agrees with them. We shall have to overcome that difficulty.
My Committee colleagues know that I have strong feelings about the presentation of our reports. The format of our reports has changed a great deal while I have been a member of the Committee. When we visited the United States about eight years ago I was impressed by the fact

that there the conclusions are brought to the front of reports. A little persistence has resulted in the Committee's conclusions now being printed at the front of its reports.
Moreover, it seemed to me to be illogical that one had to be a ferret of considerable ability to find the Treasury's response to the Committee's conclusions. I refer to the Treasury minutes. I am delighted that the Committee's recommendations are now listed in the Treasury minutes and that the answers are given there. I thank the Treasury Bench for having achieved that change.
The Committee can still learn from what happens overseas. When they look at the front of any of the Committee's reports, the public can be forgiven for wondering what they are all about. I refer, for example, to the Committee's first report on financial problems at universities. I believe that there would be merit in the Committee doing what our cousins across the water do; it should highlight the three key points on the front cover.
There is no doubt that our work is successful with the civil service, but I do not know whether it is entirely successful with the Government of the day or the House. Part of the problem, I believe, is that we still conduct too many inquiries. There is little merit in a plethora of inquiries; the Committee would do better to conduct in depth fewer inquiries.
Ever since I became a member of the Public Accounts Committee I have taken a great interest in the national health service. I can almost reel off the number of NHS reports that the Committee has published. If, however, I did not have the most marvellous filing system in the East Cloisters, I should be unable to delve into the Committee's inquiries six, seven or eight years ago. One of the challenges for the Committee is to collate that great bank of knowledge and recommendations, some of which will become highly relevant as changes occur. At the moment the Committee depends entirely on the accounting officer's memory. The usual answer is that he was not in post at the time, so he cannot help. We are unable, therefore, to rely on the Department. Moreover, the memory of those in the National Audit Office is not quite as long as the memory of Committee members. The challenge that we must face up to in the months and years ahead is to effect a link between the present and what happened six, seven or eight years ago.
The same point could be made about privatisation. The Committee has considered privatisation and the disposal of Government assets in many of its reports. We must pool together all the lessons that we have learnt from those reports.
I believe, too, that the scope of the Committee's considerations needs to be reappraised. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough referred to Government agency agreements. There is little doubt that the Committee will have to consider closely the relationship between a Government agency, the Department and the expenditure of public money. My hon. Friend mentioned overheads. The whole structure will have to be looked at closely.
As we come to the end of the era of privatization—there is not much left to privatise—there will be public sector bodies which are not agencies or normal Departments but which still have public money in them. When we passed the National Audit Act 1983, nationalised industries were kept outside, mainly due to the chairmen of those industries. The time will come in the near future when we should reassess our scope in that area.
We need to look at Europe. It may be just circumstantial good luck, but on the Order Paper today from the Leader of the House is the new structure for analysing the work of the EEC and the directives that come to us. In the new Session we shall have three Select Committees looking at draft directives split across three broad subject areas. It does not need me to re-emphasise to the House the importance of the EEC and its relationship with this Parliament. I plead considerable ignorance of our relationship with the European Court of Auditors and how the linkage will work in relation to the ever-increasing importance of Brussels. In our new Session we should have a deliberative discussion on the linkage with our work in Europe.
I want to deal with two of the reports, which both cover the same area: the first report on the financial problems at universities and the 16th report on financial management in the national health service. The report on the universities is principally about Cardiff but that has been covered adequately. I want to emphasise the recommendation that we made about universities generally. In paragraph (f) we make it clear that we remain concerned at the serious financial difficulties facing many universities. We emphasise the fact that the Universities Funding Council should monitor what is happening and we recognise the importance of the restructuring exercise that is in hand. The report says:
On both these matters we expect the Council to keep Parliament fully informed on progress and results.
That is a crucial paragraph and should not be forgotten.
The 16th report on the NHS is also about financial control. It picks up the aims of resource management initiatives. It explains the importance of case histories and regrets the slippage that occurred during 1988–89 and 1990–91. The response in the Treasury minute says that action is being taken.
If I have a worry that I wish to share with my colleagues, it is that in both higher education and the NHS —outside defence they are the two large areas of public expenditure—the aim seems to be to achieve a financial "level plain". In my judgment, that is the wrong way round. The philosophy of the Public Accounts Committee over the years has been to ask people what their objectives are. Their objectives are concerned not with finance but with policy. Currently, those policy objectives appear to be subsumed by the financial objectives. We run into great difficulties as a Government and a nation if we allow the accountancy element to dictate policy rather than the other way round.
The Chamber is fairly sparsely attended, but I should tell my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee that it is time that we had a deliberative session on the scope of the Committee, its relationship with Europe and the financial dimensions involved.

Mr. Terry Davis: I should like to join other Committee members and say that I regret the tragic loss of Ian Gow from the Committee and the House. As several hon. Members have said, we shall all miss his incisive and perceptive style of questioning. The Committee benefited from his example, especially those of us who are younger and less experienced. I was a particular beneficiary because I sat next to Ian Gow and benefited

from his whispered comments, many of which would not bear repetition in the House. He was always ready to say what he thought about a witness in terms that were as incisive and perceptive as his questioning.
I should like to join other Committee members in expressing my appreciation for the work of the National Audit Office. As years have gone by we have all learnt increasingly to appreciate its work. It is not patronising to say that the quality and standard of its reports and the work behind them has improved tremendously over the years. Every year we find that they are better and better and more informative. They go far beyond the old style of reports, which were concerned only with ensuring that civil servants did not abuse the taxpayer by taking his money. That is, of course, an important part of the work of the National Audit Office and it must ensure that there is no question of fraud. However, its work has gone beyond that now. We are concerned about value for money, as is the National Audit Office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that many of our recommendations are put into effect before we make them. The same can be said to a greater extent of the work of the National Audit Office. Many of the faults, defects and errors of Government Departments are corrected before the NAO reports on them. That is to be welcomed because we do not want a lapse of time. We want them to be corrected as quickly as possible. However, the NAO does not always receive the credit that it deserves. Having talked to members of staff, I know that they recognise and accept that. They do not resent it because they are inspired by the spirit of dedication to public service. They are happy to see that things are put right. Nevertheless, this is an occasion on which to point out that the full benefit of their work cannot always be appreciated because we do not always know how many stable doors have been shut before they have been opened.
I should like to join other Committee members in expressing our appreciation for the work of my right hon. Friend the Chairman. We all recognise his skill and the leadership that he provides. I would not say that both sides of the Committee appreciate his work because, as he said, we do not work in that way. We all appreciate his skill in choosing who shall ask a question next. In an unguarded moment he once confessed to me that he sees himself much as an American football coach, playing Committee members as appropriate and bringing them in when he thinks that a witness deserves them. I am sure that he will particularly miss Ian Gow's contribution in that respect. As the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) said, we all appreciated his contribution. He was much too self-effacing in his remarks. Also, we shall miss the hon. Member for Scarborough if he is to leave the House at the next election.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) made some interesting suggestions about the way in which we can improve our work and the presentation of our reports. It is a great misfortune that we confine ourselves to one debate a year. In that debate we are expected to consider many reports. This year we are expected to consider 40 reports, but it is sometimes more. That is too much to digest and too much to debate. I am not suggesting that we should have a debate for every report, but some reports would merit their own debate. For example, the report on the quality control of road and bridge construction would have merited a debate. A case


can be made for having a series of debates in which we might take several reports together. This year, we have had several reports on the national health service, and it would have been useful to have a debate on those reports as a group, in which we could have drawn out common suggestions, themes and criticisms of NHS management.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South drew a comparison between the problems of the national health service and those of universities. That has been one of the themes of this year. The health service and universities are suffering from a similar problem, and too often we assume that it is overspending. I wish that we could spend more time asking whether they are underfunded rather than overspending, because that can produce the same result of expenditure exceeding income. Perhaps we should consider whether they are receiving enough money, not simply whether it is being overspent.
I link that with the objective of value for money. Too often, we fall into the trap of assuming, as sometimes do the National Audit Office reports, that value for money means spending less. Sometimes, we get better value for money by spending more. I give as an illustration a question that I put to the chief executive of the national health service management executive, and I was disappointed that he did not seem to understand the difference. If the national health service spends 2 per cent. more and treats 5 per cent. more patients, is not that better than spending 2 per cent. less and treating 5 per cent. fewer patients? It is a real cost improvement if more money is spent and more patients are treated because it comes from higher productivity and the unit cost is less. In our questioning and reports, we do not place the right emphasis on getting real value for money, which may result from increasing the amount spent by a Department or service.
I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) assured us that University college, Cardiff is doing much better and resolving its financial difficulties. However, that university is an example of it being better to take two reports together. Our first report, entitled "Financial Problems at Universities", was occasioned by the difficulties at University college, Cardiff, in which I took a personal interest. We have a Treasury minute, which is why it is included tonight, but we do not yet have the Treasury minute on the 36th report, entitled "Restructuring and Finances of Universities". Those reports would have made a good debate, because the report on University college, Cardiff and its problems leads naturally to the more general and wider problems of other universities.
Although many of the witnesses who appeared before us in the past year were rightly criticised, the Universities Funding Council was the least impressive of the bodies that we examined. I draw the attention of the House to some of the comments that we made in our first report, which arose from the difficulties at Cardiff. In the report, which was published on 15 January, we said:
We believe strongly, however, that the UGC"—
as it was then called—
should have taken earlier and more positive action to identify, appraise and tackle the financial difficulties at Cardiff. They were well aware of the difficulties facing universities as a result of grant levels; and indeed they assured our predecessors that they would be discussing with universities exactly the sort of staffing problems that lay at the

heart of Cardiff's troubles. We consider that they took too passive a role in concluding that they were unable to challenge the College's view that no staff reductions were necessary.
We expressed our respect of the independence of universities and said that
this does not mean that the UGC should have abjured sufficient control to be able to assure themselves of competent financial performance by universities.
We added:
We also consider that the UGC made an error of judgment in not reporting these problems to Parliament in their annual survey at the first available opportunity.
We then commented on universities generally and said:
We remain very concerned over serious financial difficulties facing many universities. We expect the new Universities Funding Council to monitor developments closely and to intervene as necessary to ensure a high standard of financial management … We expect the Council quickly to build up the planning arrangements, financial management and information systems, and the capacity for monitoring and analysis which are essential for the effective allocation and oversight of the grants to universities. We look to the Council to secure prompt and determined action where required by the public interest, whilst recognising also the responsibility and autonomy of the universities themselves in such matters.
We ordered that report to be published on 15 January 1990. The evidence on which it was based had been taken on 11 May 1988, and I revert to the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South that sometimes we should try to issue these reports more quickly. When we received the Treasury minutes in April 1990, the Treasury told us that
The monitoring of all universities' financial position has been improved by: UFC requiring institutions to produce annual financial forecasts, which are then analysed; institutions presenting their accounts in a uniform format according to newly-agreed conventions so that they can readily be analysed and compared with previous forecasts; financial relations between UFC and the institutions being governed by financial memoranda which set out conditions under which Exchequer grant may be paid; and the UFC establishing an internal audit unit and generally strengthening its financial expertise.
Unfortunately for the Treasury, we had taken evidence between our report on the problems at Cardiff and their general application and the publication of its minute. We had taken evidence in February, only six weeks after we had prepared our report on Cardiff's problem. The Treasury minute published in April bears little relation to the evidence that we were given in February, only two months before, by the chairman of the Universities Funding Council, as is shown in our report, which came out quite recently.
In the report, we say:
The Funding Council needs to act vigorously in discharging its new responsibilities and ensuring a high level of accountability to Parliament for the financial control exercised over university expenditure and the economic, efficient and effective use of resources.
We make other comments, conclusions and recommendations, culminating in the statement:
The Funding Council must take vigorous, prompt and effective measures to resolve these matters.
The echoes of the first report are in our 36th report. Between May 1988 and February very little had improved or changed; indeed, I find it difficult to see any improvement or change. I do not believe that the Universities Funding Council has done anything like enough, and it did not have to wait for our report. If it had followed the suggestion and encouragement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to put the greater part of recommendations into effect before they


were made, we should have expected some progress to be made between May 1988 and February 1990, but I regret that we did not see such progress.
Therefore, it would be a good idea if, from time to time, we took reports together, as the hon. Member for Northampton, South suggested, to consider recommendations made a few years before and what happened when we took evidence at a later date. That would improve not only the work of the Committee but, much more important, the performance of Departments and accounting officers. Perhaps sometimes it is a good idea to go back to see what was recommended by our predecessors perhaps five or 10 years previously and how much has been done, rather than simply considering rather bland and flattering Treasury minutes that promise much but produce very little.

Mr. Michael Latham: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who makes a signal contribution to our discussions in the Public Accounts Committee. As he said, he sat next to our friend, Ian Gow. The highest tribute that I can pay the hon. Gentleman is that he and Ian made a fine team in putting witnesses on the spot, in the interests of taxpayers. They worked well together in our Committee. Ian might well have been speaking at this moment almost where I am standing.
Many hon. Members, particularly the Committee's Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), referred to Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland report. One sentence in the 36th report sums up the way in which Ian Gow went straight to the kernel of the problem. On 14 June 1989, he asked the accounting officer, Mr. Blease:
Does it come as a surprise to you if members of this Committee have read with disbelief the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
Mr. Blease replied, "No." Ian put his finger on the deplorable failure of administration which had taken place in that case, and in many other cases—a failure described by the accounting officer as "appalling". I echo the comment of the right hon. Member for Ashton-underLyne—who was properly given support by the Ulster Unionist party as he said it—that we do not expect third-world standards of administration from parts of the United Kingdom. I used that expression in questioning as well. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we expect and demand as a Committee exactly the same standards of administration in any part of the United Kingdom and we trust the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland to bring these cases before us, as Dr. Jack does now and as his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Calvert, did before him. All of us remember debating the disgraceful events involving the De Lorean report, to which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred. It was one of the most serious failures of administration and of spending control ever to come before the Committee in the more than 100 years of its existence. The Committee rightly drew attention to that failure in its lengthy report, which the House felt necessary to discuss in a separate debate.
I have listened carefully to this debate, as I have listened to many over the seven years in which I have been a member of the Committee. There is always a danger,

which we have not wholly avoided today, of being like soldiers pinning medals on to our own chests. There is always a danger that we shall say, "We are all doing very well. Everyone is very happy. If people were not happy, the House would be packed and Members would be moaning about the Committee's failure. The fact that people are not doing that suggests that the Committee is doing its job well." I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and other hon. Members have made it clear that, while we have important work to do, we must never be complacent about it. We must always look for ways of improving and refining it in conjunction with the National Audit Office, which does such a signal service on behalf of taxpayers, and under the guidance of our Chairman.
Other than my direct constituency work of bringing the problems of my constituents before the House—which we all have to do, as it is an essential part of our duties—I believe that the work that I do on the Public Accounts Committee is far and away the most important thing I do in the House. It is the only thing that makes any difference. About 80 per cent. of what I do in the House is probably wasted, and perhaps 50 per cent. is harmful. The work that I do on the Committee is beneficial to taxpayers generally, for only one reason: because of the structure of public service, the method by which the National Audit Act 1983 was drawn up and the Committee's work, the Committee can bring the accounting officer, the permanent secretary, the Sir Humphrey Appleby, before it, and he has to come personally.
One report which no one has discussed and which is probably not widely known is described as the second special report. It was published a few months ago and in it we set out the revised terms of appointment of accounting officers. Publishing the report provides a useful service to the public, who can see what accounting officers and permanent secretaries have to do. I should like to quote from paragraph 11, because it is an important point about which the public should know. The report states:
If a course of action is in contemplation which raises an issue not of formal propriety or regularity but more widely of prudent and economical administration, it is the duty of the Accounting Officer to draw the relevant factors to the attention of his Minister and to advise him in whatever way he deems appropriate. He may think it right to refer to the possibility of criticism by the PAC. If his advice is overruled, he should ensure that both his advice and the overruling of it are apparent clearly from the papers.
I have talked to Ministers many times about that matter and several have said that that is no idle threat. On several occasions, they have made suggestions to the accounting officer, to the permanent secretary, who has said, "No, Minister. We cannot do that because I am the poor Charlie who has to go before the Public Accounts Committee and explain it away, not you. We must not do that." I asked Sir Peter Gregson when he appeared before us during the Rover inquiry whether the process of giving a written minute to the Minister had taken place. He said that it had not happened. I have asked that question on other occasions, for example, during the De Lorean affair. This is a strong power for members of the Committee. It enables an accounting officer to persuade politicians, of whatever Government, that they cannot take actions that would look bad in front of the Public Accounts Committee.
Perhaps the Committee's principal strength is not the unanimity to which the right hon. Member for


Ashton-under-Lyne referred or the back-up of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is essential; it is the fact that the Committee is properly resourced. The House has devoted a lot of time—I remember the 1979 debates—to considering whether we should strengthen the Select Committee procedures. The debates took place when Lord St. John of Fawley was setting up these Committees as Leader of the House. Distinguished Members, such as Mr. Enoch Powell, took the view that such Committees were potentially detrimental to the House because they would take people away from the Chamber and allow for a consensus approach that would take away from the flow of party conflict. There are distinguished Members of the House now who still take that view and periodically express it.
There has been such a danger in the reports and the proceedings of some departmental Select Committees. To some extent, it depends on the subject that they have taken. If they take highly partisan subjects, they are likely to produce highly partisan reports or reports with a 7:6 majority. They often do so on the basis of the views of the expert witnesses and advisers who have been hired for the inquiry. By passing the National Audit Act and making the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department responsible to the House, the House has said, "Here is a properly resourced, fully staffed and efficient Department that does all the work in advance." On several occasions, led by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the Committee has not been prepared to continue an inquiry because a Department has come to us disagreeing with the words in a green report. The Committee cannot operate on that basis. We have to have an agreed report in front of us. Then we can proceed.
As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and other members of the Committee remember, we have sent some of those great mandarins away with their tails between their legs because we have not been prepared to put up with them arguing about the text of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report when it should have been agreed in advance. On one occasion—no names, no pack drill—a permanent secretary took me out to lunch to get my advice on how to appear before a Public Accounts Committee. I gave him my advice, he thanked me very much for it, and shortly afterwards he retired from Government service.
Our work will become increasingly important. We often have to deal with the work of, for example, the Ministry of Defence, where billions of pounds have been wasted by inefficient procurement, poor management and so on. The Committee has greatly welcomed the appointment of Sir Peter Levene and much of his work as Chief of Defence Procurement.
As I sit in the Committee Room, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, two afternoons a week, most weeks of the year for the past seven years, it makes me mad to have to look again at examples of deplorably sloppy administration and of money being wasted, whether it is just a few hundred thousand pounds in Northern Ireland, such as happened in the nursery—which is none the less important—or billions of pounds in the Ministry of Defence. It is being wasted at a time when I, like all other hon. Members, have to go to surgeries in my constituency where I meet constituents who are not receiving pensions or social security and who are getting into difficulties over housing,

over the community charge or in other areas. There is no money to deal with that because much of it is being wasted in faulty administration.
This may be my last speech in this debate. I believe that this is the role with which Members of Parliament especially have to deal. We have to go to the Committee and we have to read learned tomes from the National Audit Office. Finally, we have to say to ourselves that we are elected to represent ordinary people and it is their money that is being misspent. We must say, "I do not care, Sir Humphrey Appleby, whether you were there when it happened or not. You are the person who must explain to us why it went wrong and, above all, what you are going to do to get it right." That is why my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is sitting on the Treasury Bench now. That is why, when my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary winds up the debate, he and the Paymaster General will be taking governmental responsibility in their replies. I hope that when they go back to their Department they will say to their officials—who work very hard—and to all those in other Departments, "Look, at the end of the day. 1 have got to take the flak on the Government Front Bench. Please go away and smarten up your administration."

Mr. David Trimble: I congratulate the members of the Public Accounts Committee on their work. I am a new Member of this House. On making my first acquaintance with PAC reports and on reading through them, I have been greatly impressed. I have also been impressed by the way in which the Committee members have carried out one of the primary functions of the House —scrutinising the work of the Executive. Having read the high quality of the reports that they produce, it is slightly disappointing to come to this debate and to see acres of green on the Benches.
I intend to concentrate on the matters relating to Northern Ireland that are highlighted in the reports. However, before I come to those, I have a passing comment relating to the first report in 1989–90 on "Financial Problems at Universities". That has already been touched on by several hon. Members and there has been particular reference to University college, Cardiff. It has been said that it was remarkable that the University Grants Committee, as it then was, seemed to be either ignorant or reluctant to act when matters at Cardiff were getting out of control.
Belfast is a lot further away from Cardiff than London is. However, as a former university teacher, I must tell the House that the fact that Cardiff was running out of control was common knowledge in the common rooms of Belfast long before the UGC or the Government acted. I find it rather sad that matters turned out as they did. The Government bailed out University college, Cardiff on condition that many of the senior staff who were responsible for administration had to have their careers prematurely ended. I notice that the same penalties were not publicly applied to those in the UGC who had been turning a blind eye to the situation for several years.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to the comment made by the permanent secretary of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland on the cases mentioned in the 36th


report, which related to the nursery. The permanent secretary said, "They are appalling cases." The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive said:
there had been a degree of negligence at every level involved in the management and control of the nursery …
and that it
did not receive adequate attention at the highest level.
He was asked:
what was the highest level at which you regard responsibility? … Where did the buck stop?
The chief executive replied:
The buck stops with … 
The text peters out in three dots. He continued:
If something similar were to happen now, the buck would stop with me".
The comment about "appalling" cases was made in reply to a question from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, He said:
These are two very bad cases. We hope we will not have to be dealing with this sort of thing again.
Eight months later, they were.
The 26th report of 1989–90 deals with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's essential-car user scheme. Under the scheme, essential-car users were entitled to a high allowance per mile and to low-interest car loans. The executive was promiscuous in the number of people it designated as essential-car users. At first, there were 1,084, but after a while the executive realised that too many had been designated and the number was reduced to about 500. The 584 or so disappointed former essential-car users threatened legal action, which was settled by the executive at a cost of £1·2 million in compensation. The executive had handled the matter in such a sloppy way that it had to pay out that sum. That was far more than was lost through the nursery scheme, which was described in the 36th report.
The case of the Housing Executive is especially galling to hon. Members who sometimes have to press the executive about the housing needs in their constituencies, only to be told that insufficient funds are available for this or that development. It is galling to see the millions of pounds that the executive has managed to lose. Money has been lost in other places as well. Other hon. Members have referred to the claims made by people who have allegedly tripped while walking along the footpath. It would be wrong to give the impression that the fault lies with the courts in Northern Ireland. It lies with the executive and with the Department of the Environment for failing to defend cases that were plainly spurious. Once word got round that all one had to do was to make a claim and that, like "Monopoly," one could pass "go" and collect more than £200, everybody was on to it in some areas.
We see such cases occurring again and again. As well as commenting on the individual cases, we should say that there is a need for a more radical approach to the way in which the administration of the executive is conducted. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee commented on the De Lorean case and referred to the rather curious position of the two directors appointed by the Government to serve on the board of De Lorean. As hon. Members are aware, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is not a normal housing authority. Unlike all the other housing authorities in the United Kingdom, it is not under the control of a local authority or of elected representatives. There are three elected representatives on

the board, but the majority of the members are not elected, but appointed. The main criteria for selecting the persons to be appointed are that they will ignore the views of the elected representatives and will acquiesce in the views of the management of the executive. If one appoints to a board people whose chief qualifications are that they will do nothing and that they will acquiesce in what the administration does, it is not surprising that such situations develop.
Those familiar with the Upper Bann constituency will understand why I could not help feeling that there is a remarkable contrast between local councillors and Ministers, civil servants and chief executives, such as those of the Housing Executive, when it comes to the sort of negligence that leads to the losses with which we are dealing. If a local councillor were to act in a negligent manner he would be surcharged, but if a Minister ignores a situation—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) told us that the nursery was the subject of his first parliamentary question when he came to the House, so Ministers were not ignorant of the situation—there is no surcharge, despite there being clear negligence. It is remarkable that people who serve without remuneration in local authorities can be exposed to considerable financial penalties, whereas persons who serve in the House and elsewhere, for a respectable financial reward and with considerable opportunities for earning on the side, should be responsible for the same or even worse losses without any penalty falling on them.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred to the penalty of having one's conduct adversely commented on by the Public Accounts Committee. That clearly is a penalty of sorts, but it is quite different from the penalty on councillors. Something should change in that respect.
I am sorry to refer to the hon. Gentleman again, but he said, and I entirely agree, that the Committee expects the same standards of administration in Northern Ireland as elsewhere. One way of achieving that is to ensure that Government Departments and other bodies in Northern Ireland are subject to the same disciplines as Departments elsewhere. The same standards will not be achieved without the same disciplines. Part of the problem in Northern Ireland is that bodies there are not subject to the same disciplines as bodies elsewhere. With the honourable exception of the Public Accounts Committee, the conduct of those Departments is largely ignored. Despite our continual efforts to persuade the Government to establish a Select Committee, as proposed by the Procedure Committee, nothing has been done. I hope that that road block will be removed so that we see the same disciplines applied in Northern Ireland as here.
The same report deals with cleaning and portering services in hospitals, which are the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland. My concern here is that the Department's response to the Public Accounts Committee's conclusions is weak in a couple of cases. The Committee refers to guidelines for the operation of the cleaning services and concludes that the DHSS should ensure that guidelines on good practice on any health-related subject are implemented. Unfortunately, the response is weak. The Department merely note the Committee's comments and says that where appropriate it will set up mechanisms to monitor the implementation of such guidelines. Such a weak response makes one unsure about whether such guidelines will be implemented.
The Committee's third conclusion on cleaning services in hospitals was that low unit costs, which in some areas are remarkably low, should he examined to ensure that a proper quality of service is being maintained. The Department's response to that conclusion was to remain virtually silent. It just says that the variations in high and low unit costs had been investigated and then goes on to refer, as if as a solution to the problem, to the present competitive tendering initiative imposing a discipline. I wish that it were possible to be confident that competitive tendering would cure the danger of a low quality of service, but, if anything, I fear that competitive tendering is likely to result in lower services than we have at the moment.
Looking through the minutes of evidence, I was struck by a comment made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. He said that in England opposition to competitive tendering had been minimised because most tenders in NHS hospitals in England had been won by in-house organisations employing the same people who had done the work before. If only the same were the case in Northern Ireland. Far too often in Northern Ireland, the in-house tenders have been overridden in favour of outside tenders which gives real reason to believe that a lower quality of service will be delivered.
The Department's response to the Public Accounts Committee's conclusion on competitive tendering was that substantial savings were expected, but there is considerable doubt about whether there will be substantial savings and we fear that any savings that there may be will be swallowed up in other losses. For example, the Southern health and social services board in my constituency, which is responsible for cleaning and portering services in hospitals and which claims that it is achieving some savings through competitive tendering for cleaning and similar services, is moving to new headquarters. It decided not to move to new headquarters in Craigavon but instead to go to Armagh at a higher cost—some £2 million. I hope that the relevant Minister will take heed of that and act accordingly.
I conclude as I began, by congratulating the Committee on the thoroughness of its work, and I hope that more time will in future be devoted to its work.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I add my tribute to the late Ian Gow, a dear colleague whom we shall all miss for many years to come. My abiding memory of him on the Public Accounts Committee was asking the question that he used to ask the accounting officer at the very beginning of his contribution, "On what day did you take up your appointment?" By getting the answer to that question, he was able to fix firmly in the minds of members of the Committee the date from which that accounting officer had responsibility for his Department. His questions were always penetrating, and his contribution to the Committee's work is a great tribute to his memory.
Listening to the debate, it is evident to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) was right when he said that the Committee's role is changing. This is one of the more interesting debates that we have had because we have talked about the way in which the Committee works and that is of interest not just to us as Members of Parliament but to the British public and the British taxpayer.
It is all the more important that my hon. Friend should have made that point, because the British taxpayer can now watch the Committee at work and see what he or she is getting by way of value for money in return for the taxes that are paid. That must be one of the most important advances that has been made by Parliament since the Committee was set up in the last century.
One of the most interesting sessions that the public had the chance to watch on television was the Committee's examination of Sir Peter Gregson, the permanent secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry, when he was giving evidence on the sale of the Rover Group to British Aerospace. That episode rivalled anything in "Yes Minister". Sir Humphrey Appleby is in serious danger of being replaced or retired. Sir Peter gave a masterly performance in a remarkable session.
We have not yet published our final report on Rover Group, but we have published an interim report and a report on the leak of evidence which was published by The Guardian. This evening I am in the somewhat curious position of being able to comment on the sixth report of the Public Accounts Committee on the sale of Rover, but I do not have the advantage of having at my disposal the Treasury minute which sets out the Government's views. That will have to wait until the final report appears in due course.
Several of my colleagues have already referred to the effect of the Committee's work on the civil service. I am an occasional lecturer to the civil service college, and I have been impressed by the extent to which civil servants, as part of their training, are helped to understand the work of our Committee. That is valuable in maintaining the high standards in the British civil service.
I have just returned from Zimbabwe, where I had the privilege of being a member of the delegation to the 36th Commonwealth parliamentary conference. Together with several other members of the Public Accounts Committee who were also members of that delegation, I attended a fascinating session on the work of Public Accounts Committees in other Commonwealth Parliaments which proved to be one of our most interesting sessions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and I were fascinated to learn that, in Zimbabwe, the Committee has the power to have police present at hearings, to fine accounting officers who have not done their job properly and to have them arrested by the police afterwards. That has not proved necessary in Britain yet, and I hope that it will never be. However, it is interesting to note that some of our Commonwealth colleagues find it necessary to adopt more draconian measures than ours.
The most fascinating investigation which the Committee has carried out in recent times has been into the sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace. The motor industry and motor cars have provided us with some of our most interesting work over the past few years. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton for the quite extraordinarily effective work that he carried out when we investigated the affairs of the De Lorean motor company.
In our sixth report on the sale of Rover Group, we considered the fact that, in 1975, the British Leyland Motor Corporation was making heavy losses, was facing bankruptcy and was taken into public ownership. In August 1988, the Government sold their 99·8 per cent. shareholding in the company to British Aerospace for £150


million, after providing a cash injection of £547 million in recognition of the company's debt and to support its investment programme.
From 1975 to the sale, the taxpayer had provided £2·9 billion in non-interest-bearing capital to support the company. My memory of my 18 years in this House is punctuated by periodic attendances in the Chamber to listen to debates in which Industry Ministers of both Labour and Conservative Governments sought to persuade hon. Members that they should vote yet another large tranche of our hard-pressed taxpayers' money to support British Leyland. A staggering sum of money was invested in that company—unfortunately to very little effect. We could all see the considerable difficulties which the company experienced until the time when the Government were obliged in August 1988 to take it into public ownership to prevent it from going bust.
When we came to the point of examining the sale of the company to British Aerospace for £150 million, it was perhaps not surprising that the Committee was anxious to be clear beyond all shadow of doubt that the Government's actions were justifiable and that the taxpayer was getting value for money for the sale of that very considerable asset. That was the basis of our investigation.
As I have said, the Committee has not yet published its final report, but the interim report is before us this evening and I can therefore pick out one or two of the salient points which will doubtless feature in the final report.
Last December, we examined the Department of Trade and Industry and its financial advisers on the sale and we had before us as witnesses the permanent secretary to the Department and his colleagues and a representative from Baring Brothers—otherwise known as Barings. We questioned them on the arrangements for the sale and the adequacy of the financial terms that were eventually agreed.
As the basis of our examination, we used a report and separate memorandum from the Comptroller and Auditor General which concluded that Rover Group was worth substantially more than the price that was agreed with British Aerospace. The purpose of the interim report is to deal only with the facts relating to the exclusivity and conduct of the Department's negotiations with British Aerospace and the handling of the relations with Parliament and the European Commission. As I have said, the conclusions will be set out in another report. The exclusive nature of the deal which the Department of Trade and Industry did with British Aerospace is the subject of this interim report.
British Aerospace first expressed interest to the Department in buying Rover Group in February 1988. We were told that its interest was conditional on the granting of exclusive negotiating rights, and the chairman of Rover Group told the Department that, in his view, such exclusivity would be in the company's interest. He was obviously very concerned that open competition would cause a repeat of the uncertainty that had damaged the business in 1986, during the negotiations with General Motors and Ford which, the House will recall, were abortive.
As a result of the chairman's view and the events that took place in 1986, the Department considered that

competition would put the Government in a better negotiating position and might lead to better sales terms. However, it accepted that competitive bidding would lead to uncertainty and might so damage the company's prospects that the Government would have to consider extensive contingent liabilities under what are called the "Varley-Marshall-Joseph" assurances which are named after former Industry Ministers. The assurances would not allow Rover Group to be left in a position where it could not meet its obligations. They were worth £1·6 billion as the contingent liability. We must take that huge sum of money into account when trying to fathom out what determined the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to agree to the exclusive deal and sell Rover Group to British Aerospace.
The Department received legal advice that the exclusive negotiating rights granted to British Aerospace should amount to no more than a statement of intent to deal exclusively. The negotiating rights would leave the Department free to take account of any other offers that it might receive from potential bidders. In fact, we were told that approaches were made by four other interested parties —Ford of Europe, Volkswagen, Lonrho and Melton Medes, which is a Nottinghamshire company.
The Committee asked the Department why it believed that the threat that competition posed more than outweighed the benefits of a limited competitive tender of the kind of which it and Barings had originally been in favour. In evidence, the Department told us that the Government had carefully considered whether to proceed on that basis. They recognised the advantage of competition in giving a benchmark against which to measure prices, but they concluded that a public auction would be damaging to the company.
That belief, which was shared by the company, was based on the experience of 1986, when interest by Ford and the consequent loss of confidence by dealers and customers resulted in a decline in the Rover Group's market share from 18·4 per cent. in January to 15·8 per cent. in February 1986. That market share was never recovered.
As I recall the evidence and the climate in the Public Accounts Committee, that information certainly had a substantial bearing on exclusivity—that the creation of uncertainty in relation to a motor company can result in a substantial and rapid loss of market share which it is extremely difficult ever to recover. The chairman of Barings made it clear to us that that decision was a matter of judgment by the Department. It is not a matter of certainty; it is a matter of judgment.
We found ourselves considering a very interesting matter indeed. We noted carefully that an initial deal for the Rover group was concluded with British Aerospace in one month. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) talked about the time that it takes to build a hospital—15 years—but the speed with which the Rover Group was sold to British Aerospace was quite breathtaking—one month.
We therefore asked the Department why it was in such a hurry to sell the company, given that it was simply the Government's wish to dispose of it within the lifetime of this Parliament. We were told that the Government took the view that, if they could end the uncertainty about the future of the Rover Group which had persisted for a considerable time, it would clearly benefit the company. Of course, they were anxious to relieve themselves at the


earliest opportunity of the contingent liabilities under the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances, which were very substantial indeed.
The taxpayers who watched the Public Accounts Committee taking evidence at the meeting on 4 December must have been aware for the first time that those large contingent liabilities still existed and that they might have had to put their hands into their pockets once again. That did not happen, because the company was sold.
We also pressed the Department of Trade and Industry on why it did not opt for a public flotation to test the market. That had been done before. We were told that, after extensive analysis, it had concluded that it was not a viable prospect and that trying to sell the shares on the open market was not really a serious runner.
We looked closely at the money involved. It has been talked about a great deal in the press and on radio and television. It was not just the £150 million that British Aerospace paid for the company that interested us: it was also the assets which the company acquired in return for the £150 million and what happened to them. At the end of the day, all that added up to a net cost of £460 million to the British taxpayer, because it included a debt write-off of £469 million, further assistance in the form of regional assistance, the easing of tax restrictions and the payment of British Aerospace's costs. It also included withdrawal by British Aerospace from the Columbus project.
We had to consider whether the spending of £460 million of British taxpayers' money could be justified in the very speedy disposal of that company to British Aerospace. We had it in mind that, because the Department did not have the benefit of competition to determine a fair price, it had nothing to act as a benchmark or a valuation of the assets in negotiations with British Aerospace. The Committee was told that the aim was to assess a fair price for the company on a going concern basis, taking account of past losses, including interest of £2·7 billion, injections of public funds of £2·9 billion, and potential liabilities under the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances of substantially more than the £1·6 billion that I have just mentioned.
The company had achieved a profit—not a very big one —of £27·9 million before tax and interest, which it hoped to improve in subsequent years, but only at the expense of a £1·5 billion capital expenditure and restructuring programme. In looking at the episode, one must take into account those two huge figures, the £1·6 billion contingent liability and the £1·5 billion capital expenditure and restructuring programme. They are very large sums of money indeed.
Clearly. any company considering the acquisition of the Rover Group from the Government would have had to think carefully about whether the modest profits of the company would justify taking what must be considered a fairly substantial commercial risk, bearing in mind the uncertainty of the motor industry, the fact that far more cars are being produced than there are customers to buy them, and the fact that, all over Europe, Governments are supporting and propping up motor companies by subsidies of one kind or another, whereas if there were no subsidies in the free market there would undoubtedly have been a considerable rationalisation of motor manufacturing capacity some time ago.
We had to look at all those figures and try to balance them. I cannot say more than that. I cannot pre-empt any decisions that the Committee may come to in its wisdom,

on which it will report to the House in due course. However, I can refer to the sale of the company's assets, which were quite substantial. I think that they amounted to about £106 million. That matter must be considered, together with the purchase price of the company.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-uncler-Lyne referred to the absence of a clawback provision, something with which we are all familiar. When an asset which belongs to the taxpayer is disposed of and it is subsequently proved that it has been disposed of at a price lower than it should have been, there is often provision for clawback. We asked why, in the case of the sale of the Rover Group, no provision had been made in the sale and purchase agreement for clawback within a prescribed period.
In reply to our questioning, the Department of Trade and Industry told us that the Government had imposed a repayment clause in relation to the main core of the Rover Group's business and on the tax losses on the company's trading, but they had not extended those arrangements to the disposal of surplus sites and the disposal of stakes in the associated companies. I should not be at all surprised if the Public Accounts Committee had more to say about that when it eventually makes its final report on this matter.
It was therefore with considerable concern that the Committee, in studying the final memorandum from the Comptroller and Auditor General, noted that the £150 million price of the Rover Group did not have to be paid until 30 March 1990. We are all familiar with the offers that are made nowadays by just about every motor company—one does not have to pay any interest for a year. We are not so familiar with such a situation when it comes to disposing of public assets, yet it appears that that is virtually what happened—the company did not have to pay until the end of March. I can only guess that there must have been some considerable arm twisting to persuade British Aerospace to buy it and for the Government to have accepted that condition.
The Committee asked why that fact had not been publicly announced. We were told that those matters were referred to in the proper place in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and control of the estimates and expenditure under various legislation. Vigilant though Members of Parliament are, it has been known that perhaps not all of them scrutinise the estimates as carefully as they should; they may therefore miss, deep within them, a fact such as that which we felt was so material to our consideration of the Rover Group. If such a sale is ever again contemplated, the date on which payment is due should be made known to the House. Hon. Members should not be left to discover it by accident from a close scrutiny of the estimates with a large magnifying glass.
The House will have to await the final chapters of this interesting episode. I believe that the Committee did a powerful job in flushing out much of the information that the public had a right to know. On this occasion, it did so with the television cameras switched on. I have subsequently met many people who are not as well informed about what we do here in Parliament as hon. Members, but who said that they found it the most fascinating investigation by a parliamentary Committee.
That greatly encouraged me. It convinced me that television has been a welcome innovation into the proceedings of the House and the Standing Committees. I hope that we shall see far more of the work of our Select


Committees and our Standing Committees on television in future, because many people who cannot easily come to London to sit in the Strangers' Gallery can take a great deal of interest in what is going on. That is of considerable benefit to us, because they often send us information that we can use when questioning witnesses.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to our Chairman for the most skilful way in which he conducts our proceedings. I hope that this will not be the last such debate in which we shall hear a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who is a wonderful colleague, and a skilful member of the Committee. I hope that we shall have another such debate before the end of this Parliament. I make the same remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who said in passing that this might be his last such debate because he is not seeking re-election to Parliament. I shall never forget his powerful contribution in our six-month inquiry into the De Lorean affair. It was a substantial contribution to parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive.

Mr. John Battle: Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have never been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, but I believe that its work is vital to good government and to the well-being of our constituents. This collection of reports has an impact on some of the poorest of our constituents, such as those on housing benefit, pensioners and those living in rented housing. The Committee's reports should be taken seriously by all hon. Members. I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on the presentation of the reports and their number. He said that many of the reports are lost to time, buried in filing cabinets, and that they are not linked to later reports. As a result, the recommendations are not connected and are not taken as seriously as they should be.
I shall concentrate on four of the reports—the retail prices index report, which is the 34th report of the 1989–90 Session; the report on housing benefit, which is the third report of the 1989–90 Session; the report on housing association grant and housing needs allocation which is the 27th report; and the 16th report, which deals with financial management in the national health service.
I recall that a recent Government press release used the retail prices index almost as a unique selling point because the Government were anxious to claim that, because increases in social security and pensions which are to be announced in the forthcoming uprating statement, will be set at current inflation rates—at the rate this October—the poorest pensioners and those in receipt of social security benefits will receive a bumper bonus in April. However, that relies on the crucial assumption that inflation will be reduced by then. Furthermore, the briefing failed to mention that in the previous five years the rate of inflation when the benefits were fixed in October was lower than the actual rate of inflation when the benefit payments started the following April. In other words, for five years those on pensions and benefits have, in effect, been shortchanged.
If that is seen as a strong statement of the case, I refer hon. Members to the report on the retail prices index. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 the Committee draws attentionton

to a computer error that led to an understatement of the retail prices index in 1986 and again in 1987. As the report states, that led to
many millions of people receiving lower pensions and benefits than they were entitled to receive.
Paragraph 32 states:
The Government considered that the Exchequer should not benefit from the error and special compensation payments, totalling some £102 million, were made to recipients of specified pension and social security benefits. In addition, donations totalling £14 million were made to appropriate charities to reflect small underpayments to a large number of beneficiaries rather than incur disproportionate administration costs in meeting individual payments. Nevertheless, the estimated administrative cost of the compensation exercise was some £5 million.
In other words, the cost of correcting the error and of giving the money to charities was £5 million. Although the report states that it involved
small entitlements to a large number",
we are talking about weekly amounts being deducted from people's pensions and benefits, which could have had significant effects. It meant that the poorest in our society were paying the price for that computer error.
The language of inflation is changing. We do not just have inflation now; we have "headline inflation" and the "underlying rate" of inflation. It is almost as if there is a deliberate attempt to split the concept of inflation. We have already heard proposals to take mortgages out of the retail prices index. The Public Accounts Committee report refers to that—I am glad that it recognised the difficulties of doing so. There have also been proposals to remove all housing costs from the RPI. When that proposal is advanced, it might be worth reflecting on the fact that there is a rampant rents explosion. Rents are increasing far too quickly and beyond the rate of inflation, yet we now hear that housing costs may be deducted when calculating the rate of inflation.
There have recently been proposals to ignore oil price rises when calculating inflation. It seems logical to some—perhaps to those who believe that inflation could be brought down to zero—that if everything in life that increases in price were excluded from the calculation, inflation could be reduced. The easy way of bringing down inflation is by deflating the way in which it is assessed. Of course, we need a realistic measure of the price changes in goods and services. That is basic to any assessment, whether of housing benefit payments or hospital budgets. It is essential that people know where they stand, so that budgets can be assessed in the first place. But one does not arrive at that realistic measure by manipulating inflation down because its actual rise is so deeply embarrassing to a Government who are committed to abolishing it entirely.
We are awaiting the Treasury response to that report from the Public Accounts Committee. We should look forward to it but when the new means of defining the retail prices index is brought before us we should not forget that many millions of people depend on that assessment for their pay and their pensions. It is absolutely crucial to get it right.
There is a clear link between the report on the retail prices index and the third report of the Committee on housing benefit. In the Treasury minute in response to the housing benefit report, it is more than clear that there has been enormous difficulty with housing benefits because of a mismatch between Government policies in the Department of the Environment, which deals with the whole structure of housing and rent costs, and the practice


in the Department of Social Security. I quote the conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee, which appears in the Treasury minutes:
We find it unfortunate that an important measure … of controlling Housing Benefit expenditure—the power to ask the Rent Officer to determine a fair rent for tenancies entered into before April 1989—was withdrawn. We recognise, however, that policy in this area is mainly the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
The Treasury minute did not go on to add the conclusion of the sentence which said:
and trust that they were aware of the considerations which were of importance to the Department of Social Security.
I remind the House that in March 1988 there were two Bills before the House on which I had the fortune or misfortune to serve in Standing Committee practically simultaneously. One was the Local Government and Housing Bill which dealt with the deregulation of rents. The other was the Social Security Bill, which dealt with fixing the formula for housing benefit repayments to local authorities. In another Treasury minute we read:
DSS and the Department of the Environment maintain close liaison on issues such as this where their policies interact. The Government decided to repeal the power of local authorities to apply for registration of a fair rent for a regulated tenancy".
The difficulty was that the boxed thinking of the Departments meant that one Standing Committee did not know the policy measures being dealt with by the other and which were incorporated in the Bill, which later became an Act. It was pointed out at the time that simply to deregulate rents would result in housing benefits being paid on astronomically high rents. That was not regarded as a problem in the Department of the Environment Bill but the DSS had not realised the impact of deregulating rents on its budget.
When one Department does not know what the other is doing, it is crucial that such matters are ironed out for one simple reason. If there is a difference between the level of the rent and the amount of housing benefit paid to those who are means tested in order to receive assistance to pay their rent, it is crucial to know who pays the difference. Is it the tenant, who is means tested and may be on full housing benefit? If such tenants find that they get rent increases they cannot pay they may receive notice to quit and are evicted. Or must the local authority pay the difference? In that case, other local authority tenants make up the difference because the amount falls on the local authority housing budget. I am glad that at last the issue of the abolition of fair rents has been picked up and that it has been acknowledged that a space has been opened up for exploitation of housing benefit by unscrupulous landlords. The report referred to
abuse by landlords who require tenants to pay unreasonably high rents on which benefit is then paid.
The key question of who pays the difference—the tenant or the local authority—must be answered because those entitled to full housing benefit as a result of means testing of their already low incomes should be the last people to pick up the difference.
In the report on housing association grants and housing needs and allocations we read a clear policy statement:
Social housing is intended for those who cannot afford market prices or rents".
Again, there is a clear conflict of policy. The Government encourage market rents, which in turn undermine social housing. In practice social housing is being priced out. Even housing association housing is driven to cut costs and increase rents. Although the Treasury response cannot

and has not taken account of the recent instruction from the Housing Corporation to housing associations that they must compete for housing association grants, the impact of that action will be an increase in rents.
The assessment of housing needs is the assessment that local authorities make of their local housing resources. They must assess what their area needs. The assessment is submitted to national Government. Local authorities are then given, not a grant, but permission to borrow, in order to get on with the job of providing and maintaining the housing stock in their area. The assessment is based on the general needs index. I draw attention to the report, which stresses that the index is not sufficiently locally sensitive to changing needs and improvements and developments in housing. To give a practical example, if an authority in an inner city area such as Leeds has many houses with outside toilets it is given a weighting, because the houses need to be provided with inside toilets. But if the authority improves all those houses it will be penalised in the allocation. In practice, it is better to keep the houses with outside toilets because that increases the local authority's weighting.
I am glad that the issue of the general needs index has been raised, but the key is in paragraph 14 of the report. It shows beyond a doubt that the crucial issue is that of resources. It says:
Because resources had been too limited and the process of 'damping' operated since 1986 had limited changes in the Index scores, the Department had only used the Index in an attenuated form since 1986.
Paragraph 15 says:
We regard it as unsatisfactory that the distribution of housing resources to local authorities has been based for so long on out-dated assessment of needs.
That focus is most welcome. Again, the emphasis must be on the general lack of resources. I accept that, as the Chairman of the Committee made clear, the reports are written in restrained language. However, there has been a deliberate reduction in local authority housing budgets of two thirds in the past 10 years. My own authority needs and has asked for £112 million for this year's programme. It will be interesting to see what response we receive in the weeks and months ahead. In the meantime, I hope that when we consider housing needs we take account of the absolute shortage of housing and the needs of people for a decent, appropriate and affordable home.
Lastly, I wish to glance at the report on the health service. In the general statement in the Treasury minute paragraph 59 says:
The Department of Health considers it most important that health authorities should be in a sound financial position when the White Paper changes are introduced and has made elimination of deficits a priority for 1990–91 through flexible and realistic planning.
It seems that the entire response of the Treasury to the Public Accounts Committee report is based on the future projections for the White Paper. We are entitled to ask what that statement means. The Public Accounts Committee could be drastically overworked in the next few years examining health service reports precisely because of the changes in the White Paper. The issue at root is balancing the books for the deadline of next April when hospitals put forward their bids to be self-governing trusts and to opt out.
The PAC recognises the difficulties of planning using estimated pay and price inflation, which is calculated a long time in advance. The current policy that has been implemented augurs no real change in practice from the


proposals in the report. For example, Leeds general infirmary—the LGI—has put in for self-governing status and it must balance its books by April. It has, however, overspent its budget for the first five months of this year and across the entire district health authority the deficit has now reached £500,000. That deficit has largely arisen from funding for Leeds general infirmary.
Unit general managers have been instructed to freeze staff appointments and to cut spending on drugs and equipment, and catering and portering services are to be reduced at Chapel Allerton and Newton Green hospitals. The director of finance has instructed that vacancies in hospital administration are not to be filled and that payments of bills are to be delayed where possible. That is precisely the opposite of the recommendation in the PAC report and the response to it by the Department of Health recorded in the Treasury minute. That minute makes it clear that where possible the payment of bills is not to be delayed. It is clear from the current budget plans and their implementation that ward closures and cuts in essential services represent the only option for Leeds general infirmary if it is to get its budget deficit under control or anywhere near balanced by next April.
The PAC report devoted a great deal of attention to condemning "crisis management". Paragraph 66 of the Treasury minute records that the Department of Health
shares the Committee's condemnation for the crisis management measures used in the NHS; such measures are never acceptable.
Crisis management is happening now, but what of the future? The inflation estimates in the documents provided for the opting out of Leeds general infirmary and St. James's are miles from reality and the inflation figures for two areas of the same city have been estimated at between 5, 3·5 and 3 per cent. for the LGI and 7, 5·5 and 5 per cent. for St. James's for the years 1990–93. There is a real discrepancy and that is especially important when one considers that if the estimated inflation figure is not met the expected impact of the actual inflation will be provided for by
a reduction in service levels".
Recently the Leeds Western health authority has had to pay out about £1 million in compensation. I understand that only one third of a million may be met out of the local budget, but even that will mean a reduction in local services.
The Leeds health authority budget could be balanced if land and property were sold—the houses that Leeds general infirmary owns—but site sales to balance the books cannot be the way out of crisis management in the short term. That is not an appropriate programme for an expansion of services.
I hope that, before the trust proposals are put forward, the Department of Health will seriously consider the PAC report and the Treasury minute on it. I hope that those reports will be sent to the regional health authority so that it can consider them before submitting its details. If that does not happen, the same mistakes that arose over housing benefit and the computer error and housing rents will be repeated. Despite advance warnings, we shall find that, surprise, surprise, in future years the accounts of the self-governing hospital trusts and declining health service provision will provide the bulk of the work for the PAC.

I hope that the Treasury will advise the Department of Health to look carefully again at the authority's proposals before they are proceeded with.

Mr. Richard Page: First, I should like to endorse all the references that have been made by the Chairman of the Committee and other Committee members to our late colleague Ian Gow. Nothing that I can say can add to what has already been said, but we have a duty to ensure that his memory never fades so that the murderous creatures who brought about his death realise that they will never be able to achieve their aims with the bomb but only through the ballot box.
I am always surprised that this debate is not better attended and not subject to greater demand by hon. Members because the material source is rich and varied, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has just illustrated. There is no danger of galloping over the same old ground for the sixth or seventh time. One should never call the speeches of hon. Members boring, but a debate on a narrower subject tends to be somewhat repetitive when the same fact is examined in a variety of different ways. Perhaps we could learn something from the Bundestag, where debates that take us six or seven hours are limited to just three hours.
I cannot compete with the long service medals that have been paraded this evening. In comparison with 20 years or so of service, my three years on the Committee makes me a relative new boy. I was, however, taken by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who spoke of the need to examine our procedures to see how they could link with the European Court of Auditors. The work of the PAC is subject to continual review and perhaps we should examine whether there should be a closer link with European methods of examining how various Government Departments work.
In the three years that I have served on the Committee I have seen various Departments and topics come round and round—I hesitate to say, like bad pennies. One issue, however, that does not come round time and again is the retail prices index, to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West has already drawn attention. I believe that it is some 10 years since it was subject to the scrutiny of the PAC. Apart from some criticism of the methods by which some information is collated—something that can be easily put right—the PAC noted:
The assurance of the Central Statistical Office that the basic framework of the RPI ensures an extremely robust indicator for measuring consumer price inflation.
It goes on to say, however, that it welcomes
the consideration currently being given to the development of a statistical reliability model
for the index and the efforts to develop
a systematic methodology for assessing possible enhancements".
That addresses the question whether the basket of goods representative of family spending four years ago is still accurate. It also leads one to question whether there is any regional balance or shopping types that should be taken into consideration. Perhaps the RPI should be targeted relative to the group to which it is applied. The obvious example is the pensioner whose weekly basket of purchases may not be identical to that of the average family. I do not wish to say anything further, but if we use an RPI on which


decisions are made, it is appropriate that it relates to the group subject to those decisions rather than being a general index that may not be accurate.
The 29th report of the PAC concerns the Customs and Excise and specifically the disposal of drug smugglers' assets. I believe that that subject illustrates that constant dripping wears away the stone, as I first raised the disposal of drug smugglers' assets through Customs and Excise in the 22nd report of 1989–90. The response then was to the effect that the Treasury was not yet persuaded of the merits of the scheme, mainly because it did not think that it would be right that the resources devoted to drug smuggling
should depend on an unpredictable and fluctuating level of proceeds from seizures
and we were told that the discussions were continuing.
The matter having been re-examined this year, I am glad to note that it has moved on somewhat. The response now seems to be that Treasury Ministers have agreed to a scheme by which a proportion of the sums from drug smugglers' assets could be used in the anti-drugs context. We are told that, although 13 international confiscation agreements have been made, as yet no funds are flowing from the initiative. We can only hope that such procedures will be developed with the passage of time.
I appreciate the desire of the Minister to be cautious, wanting to proceed year by year. I hope that his efforts will be successful and will help to protect the youth of the country from the trafficking scum who would destroy it.
One of the most damning reports of the year was on the Energy Efficiency Office. Any body that sets itself up with such a title is leading with its chin, and I regret to say that we found little efficiency and not much energy. The report is damning because it questions whether the Energy Efficiency Office should have been in existence for the past five or six years. No targets were set, monitoring was suspect, to say the least, and there was no co-ordination among Departments to see whether there was any relative progress or whether best practice was spreading. The situation was summed up in a sentence in paragraph 10 of the report, which said, with that typical understatment that is part of the PAC's raison d'etre:
we question whether the Energy Efficiency Office as presently constituted and run can secure the objectives set out by the Secretary of State and achieve value for money.
I read that to mean that it has been wasting its time, and nothing that came out of the evidence convinced me to the contrary. But in the belief that hope springs eternal, the Committee added:
We emphasise that we expect the Energy Efficiency Office to exercise close central direction and monitoring of the initiative and to provide advice to departments on best energy efficiency and practices.
That must happen if that office, which should be a vital organisation, is to have any purpose, and need exist, in the future.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to the 31st report, entitled "Quality Control of Road and Bridge Construction", which links, in my view, with the 28th report of the previous year on the backlog of maintenance of motorways and trunk roads. Like other hon. Members, I raise the issue because of the main roads that run through our constituencies and cause grief and aggravation. My constituency is bisected by the M25, at times the largest car park in the United Kingdom. I share my constituents' anguish and aggravation because of their belief that they are paying the price for the sins of the forerunners in the Department of Transport.
The saga of deferred maintenance continues. The problem was highlighted in the report of two years ago. Our last report showed more clearly that not sufficient attention had been given to design life and quality of maintenance. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), a member of the Committee exposed the lack of quality of maintenance. I recommend hon. Members in all parts of the House to read his cross-examining on page 7 of that report. He highlighted two cases, one of plinth-bearing replacements and the other of spaghetti junction, where there were impressive overruns—if one can regard any excess of expenditure of public money as impressive—of taxpayers' money.
Although sanctions are available to the Department, there is a feeling that they are being used sparingly. For example, we noted that, despite the many failures in producing the correct level of support in exercising maintenance contracts, the reliance by the Department on the sanction of banning contractors or consulting engineers from tendering had been imposed only once in recent years and that few warnings had been issued. I suggest that the Department takes a tougher line when dealing with overruns on contracts and with faulty and shoddy work.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne took issue with the Treasury minute on design life and the relevant cost of quality improvement on initial installation. I support him in that. The matter remains unresolved. I fear that the saga will continue to run as the whole question of the maintenance and repair of roads and bridges returns for consideration by our Committee.
I shall not go over that ground again, except to say that I found it remarkably callous that the Department's calculations did not take into account the heavy cost of delays incurred by the travelling public and industry. We must treat the travelling public with the correct attitude because they pay for the maintenance that in turn pays for all the jobs connected with the Department. More consideration of those who use the roads would not go amiss.
As I said, this whole debate contains a rich vein of information that need never run out in the time scale available to us. I have highlighted a few issues that are of importance and that I found interesting during the year. Other hon. Members have adduced their thoughts. I join others in expressing appreciation to our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, for the gentle yet firm way in which he guides us. I am sorry that occasionally he finds it necessary to issue the 15–minute warning, but if he did not do so we should on many occasions not conclude our deliberations before midnight.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Let me associate myself and my hon. Friends with the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the late Ian Gow. Ian was cruelly murdered, and I condemn unreservedly both the murder and the murderers.
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee described Ian Gow as a valuable member of the Committee, and also referred to his hard work and wise counsel. He was an able parliamentary opponent. Following his resignation from the Government on a point of principle, he took a particular interest in Treasury


matters, and was always available to bat for the Government side in our little skirmishes over taxation policies.
I shall miss Ian's contributions to Treasury debates very much. I found out that, as well as being a tough and formidable opponent, he was—as has already been said —a very kind and a very nice man. We are diminished by his death, and also by the manner of it.
I welcome the Financial Secretary to his new job. I hope that he is not offended by the level of attendance tonight; it is actually quite good for the concluding stages of a Public Accounts Committee debate, and I am sure that that is a tribute to him. We have all come to hear his debut from the Treasury Front Bench. I welcome him on behalf of the Opposition, and look forward to hearing his contribution later.
Let me also express my thanks to the Committee for its work, as I have done in the last three Public Accounts Committee debates in which I have replied for the Opposition. I especially thank the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). The PAC is a hard-working Committee, but it is kept going by his diligence and enthusiasm as Chairman: that is very much appreciated. We also appreciate his approach to the work of the Committee—work that is considered, reflective and courteous, and brings about the unanimity that is so important to the integrity and power that the Committee's reports carry.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on having got his hands on the Committee's papers, and also on being the only non-member of the Committee to take part in this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about David Trimble?"] It seems that I am mistaken: the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is also to be congratulated.
It was quite difficult to obtain copies of the Committee papers during the summer. While I realise that Committee members are familiar with them, if they were more easily available to those who do not serve on the Committee, perhaps other hon. Members would be more likely to take part in our debates. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page): if more hon. Members realised what a seam there is to tap, there might be a better attendance and a broader range of contributions.
I was sorry to learn that the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is retiring at the next general election; I wish him well in his retirement. He has been a regular contributor to our debates in this Parliament, and, if he is here for the next debate, I shall be able to wish him well again.
The Chairman described the Committee as a kind of "training scheme" for Labour Members from the 1983–87 intake who have gone on to take starring roles in our Front-Bench team. I am now something of an old lag: this is my fourth year of responding to these debates, and my third Financial Secretary. I do not think that I am wearing them down, as they have all gone on to greater things, and I am sure that the new one will as well.
There are certain recurring themes in these debates. The Ministry of Defence figures prominently this year, as it has previously; so do the affairs of Northern Ireland. The issue

of fraud is perhaps not quite as prominent as it was in the previous two years, but it nevertheless features in some of the reports.
There are two further issues that are defined not by Department or by type, but in a more general way. The first is the issue of public expenditure foolishly forgone, which is dealt with in several reports. I am trying to introduce the word "Lamontable" into the English language to describe such public expenditure foollishly forgone, and I shall continue to do so. The word has not been taken up yet but, with grit and determination, I shall manage to get it into the dictionary.
The other feature which becomes all too clear from the reports is implementation of Government policy clashing with the best interests of the public purse. That is especially noticeable in the reports dealing with privatisation.
First, I shall deal with the report on matters relating to Northern Ireland. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee took us all back when he referred to the report on the De Lorean affair. He then invited us to get inside one of those De Loreans and go "Back to the Future", to examine similar affairs.
Reference was made to the paving stone accident claims in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members may recall that there was a time when just about every house in Belfast seemed to contain someone who had fallen down and had a claim against the state for injuring their knees. The previous Public Accounts Committee report dealing with social security matters in the Province could have been mentioned. That report set out the problems clearly, but conclusions seemed to be a little further away. I notice that the Treasury response to that report was not very encouraging either.
Other issues that the Public Accounts Committee will have to consider in future will certainly include progress on the AOR1 contract, compared with the original promises made.
The hon. Member for Scarborough referred to the land registry in Northern Ireland, which failed to put up the fees to cover its costs. That is a simple problem, but it should have been picked up long before it was.
Another report before us today deals with plants and with microfilm. Although the sum of money involved is not vast when compared to sums mentioned in other reports, the word "astonished" is used—and that is strong language from the Public Accounts Committee.
When studying all these issues, I found a key theme —it is supervision: checking and monitoring and intense and continuing audit. I suspect that that is not as easy to achieve in Northern Ireland as it is to say in a debate. I strongly support the hon. Member for Scarborough, who said that the tests that we apply to Northern Ireland should be no different from those we apply elsewhere in Britain. That is right but it is not easy, and the House should be aware of the difficulties while we keep that purpose firmly in front of us.
Before leaving the subject of Northern Ireland, it is worth referring briefly to the 30th report of the Public Accounts Committee about collection of the broadcast receiving licence fee—the BBC TV licence. It says:
We are very concerned at the current level of licence evasion and regard it as unacceptable.
I suspect that that was also said back in 1985. The report goes on to point out:
We note that, although only some I million households have black and white televisions 1·8 million monochrome licences were issued last year.
That fact caught my attention and I am sure that of other hon. Members. What conclusions are we to draw from it? The Public Accounts Committee drew the obvious conclusion. When I read through that report I was reminded of the debate that we had earlier about the road fund licence and its collection. It said that the penalty for non-payment is less severe than paying the licence fee. We have been told that events have not moved on since the Public Accounts Committee last considered the matter. We seem to be getting stuck. 1 hope that the Committee will not come forward in the next Parliament, or three years into it, and tell us that it is worried about the level of licence evasion and regards it as unacceptable.
There must be a response to these licence issues, whether it be the road fund licence or the BBC's television licence, that goes further than letting the problem drift and noting that it is still a problem in two or three years' time. The problem is not unrelated to the problems in Northern Ireland, where the level of evasion is substantially higher than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The most important report before us is the Public Accounts Committee's sixth report on the sale of Rover Group plc to British Aerospace plc. Both the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that this is an interim report which poses questions; it does not reach definitive conclusions about them. I fully accept that the Public Accounts Committee has more work to do. Nevertheless, they are powerful questions and to some extent almost lead to their own conclusions. Good and plausible answers will have to be given to them. The hon. Member for Uxbridge did his best to provide them in his speech.
The questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, rightly raised were: why not accept competition in order to obtain the best price? There is a departmental response to that question, although how convincing the Committee finds it will be a matter for further consideration. The Department needs to justify its policy of exclusivity.
My right hon. Friend also asked what evidence there was that the public option would be damaging and why the other offers were not followed up in a closed competition. The Department said that competitive tendering involves risk. That is not the line that Conservative Governments usually adopt. Normally we are told that competitive tendering is good and that it should be embraced rather than thoroughly avoided, as it was in this case.
A number of other questions were asked. Since the Department did not have the benefit of competition to determine a fair price, the Committee asked why it did not carry out an evaluation of all the assets of the company. That was a fair question, and there was a response to it. The Public Accounts Committee will have to consider carefully precisely what assessment to make of that response.
A number of other questions fall into the same category. The Public Accounts Committee asked the Department why it was prepared to accept a settlement that the European Commission showed it was possible to improve. It asked the Department why it had based all its negotiations on profit forecasts at the lower end of the

Rover Group's profit forecasts when the company was forecasting a range of profits in 1988 of between £37·5 million and £65 million. The Committee also asked about the Rover Group's stakes in nine associated companies.
A question that in particular caught my eye was the one which was put to the chairman of Barings. He was asked to explain the disparity between his company's evaluation of Istel at £8 million to £10 million and the fact that it was disposed of shortly after the sale for £39 million.
The Committee also asked the Department why it had not sold off the surplus land that was not connected with making motor cars before the Rover Group was put up for sale. The Department told the PAC that, at the time of the sale, there was only one such site—Bathgate—and that that remained the case. In subsequent written evidence, the Department confirmed that it had been aware of moves to close down a further three sites in time.
The Department told the PAC that it did not carry out an evaluation of the Rover Group's shares in these companies early in 1988 when British Aerospace made its initial offer for the company. The Department was unable to put a precise figure on the value to British Aerospace of the Rover Group's tax benefits—a significant issue.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the fact that, in the case of the sale of the Rover Group, no provision was made for the Government to claw back from British Aerospace within a prescribed period some part of any unforeseen financial benefits accruing from the sale of surplus sites or shareholdings, or the use of tax benefits.
The hon Member for Uxbridge referred to the date for final payment. He seemed to take that particularly seriously, and I share his view. The Public Accounts Committee asked the Department why it had not been announced publicly. The replies that the Department is giving to that and other questions relating to our relationship with the European Community do not show our country in a very good light. The Public Accounts Committee inquired why details of the additional £38 million were not reported to the European Commission. The Department replied that it thought it better not to draw attention to them at the time, since it did not want to take the risk of reopening the deal.
Anything that gives our Common Market partners misgivings about the way in which we conduct public administration is to be deplored. I seem to remember saying this to the hon. Member for Uxbridge last year, but, while I do not want to pre-empt the eventual findings of the Public Accounts Committee, there is clearly enormous cause for concern. I look forward with considerable interest to the outcome.
On the question of land sales and the valuation of assets, I must say that the Department could have been warned by the previous inquiry that the Public Accounts Committee carried out, into the sale, again to British Aerospace, of the royal ordnance factories. In its 13th report, the Committee concluded:
Nevertheless, we consider that the Department might have been in a better position to evaluate the bids received if they had: (a) carried out a further revaluation as at about December 1986; (b) invited bids for the Company both with and without a clawback provision; (c) obtained an estimate of potential development values, particularly for Waltham Abbey and Enfield".
It is bad enough for the issues to appear in the sale of the Royal Ordnance factories. To have those aspects reappear in a further privatisation exercise will take a great deal of defending before the Committee.
In an effort to get the word "Lamontable" into the English language—it is a worthy cause, which I am sure has the wholehearted support of the House—I turn to the 31st report of the Public Accounts Committee, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred. As he said, it is not simply a matter of inconvenience to road users when they find that the road or bridge on which they are travelling is taken up for maintenance. There are enormous costs for industry, not least the cost of lorry drivers who are on fixed time and are being delayed. As my right hon. Friend said, the whole thing is unnecessary. As he pointed out, the Treasury minute dealing with premature corrosion is almost Sir Humphrey Appleby "Yes Minister" stuff.
One of the advantages of having had to respond for the Opposition every year for four years is that I was able to consider the report alongside an earlier report on the maintenance and construction of motorways. The Department of Transport will have to take seriously the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee's reports. In paragraph 2(iii), the Public Accounts Committee says:
We are concerned that since there has been little systematic investigation of the causes and costs of premature maintenance, the Department may not be in a position to take full account of unforeseen repairs and premature maintenance in their cost benefit analysis or in setting standards for road construction.
That is extraordinarily serious. We heard something similar to that when we were considering the motorway programme. I hope that that is taken seriously in both the Department of Transport and the Treasury. It surely represents public expenditure that should have been made to avoid substantially greater sums of public expenditure later.
Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West referred to the report on financial problems at universities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) made an important point when he said that this report echoes an earlier report and referred to the gap between May 1988 and February 1990. It is not sufficient to know what is going wrong; we must address it and put it right. The tributes that were paid to those who are currently struggling with the problems at University college, Cardiff, were justified. Efforts are being made to respond to the specific problems that the report outlined.
A report that struck a chord with me because it related to an earlier report was the one on the Metropolitan police estate. Two years ago, one of the most horrific Public Accounts Committee reports that I have seen was produced on the financing of the Metropolitan police. The current report complements that earlier investigation. The Public Accounts Committee said:
We consider that the poor condition of the Metropolitan Police's operational estate is unacceptable, and that this almost certainly hinders efficiency and effectiveness.
That comment was made at a time when public concern about crime was rising substantially, as is crime itself.
The report continues:
We are not satisfied that even within the funds available, effective management of the estate has been given the care and attention it clearly requires … We endorse the Metropolitan Police's acceptance of the fact that, though cutting back on maintenance seems an immediate, easy option, it is in the long term a damaging and expensive one.

That is a message that I try to convey to the Department of Transport; it is certainly right in this context.
The report continues:
We are concerned that the Metropolitan Police have over the years built up an extensive land bank of valuable sites without having determined a clear strategy and timetable for bringing them into use.
The Government's response to that and further points made in the report is to accept most of the Public Accounts Committee's findings and say that all will be put right when money is available. Money will have to be made available, or substantially higher sums will have to be made available later. Again, a little public expenditure that is forgone now will cost the public purse much more later.

Mr. Shersby: The report of the Metropolitan police estate was of considerable interest—I declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. It has resulted in several sites that were held by the Metropolitan police estate either being developed for the purpose for which they were originally intended or being disposed of as part of a disposal programme. There are too many rundown police stations in London that need urgent attention, and money realised as a result of sales can be used for that purpose.
It might amuse the hon. Gentleman that, on one famous occasion, two members of staff were standing in the window of the National Audit Office. One said to the other, "I wonder who owns that site across the road." They decided to find out and discovered that it was owned by the Metropolitan police and that it was being used as a car park. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that it will be redeveloped as the new Gerald road police station, the purpose for which it was originally intended.

Mr. Brown: That is pleasing news. It is particularly pleasing that proceeds from the sale of those sites can be used to improve police stations or to develop other police stations. That is an obvious answer to the problem, but it is not one that obtains throughout public administration, as any councillor could tell the hon. Gentleman.
As it is "after eight", I shall briefly consider the report on the Royal Mint. I was much taken by this report because I originally thought that the idea was pretty daft. The report tells us:
In 1987 the Mint launched the Britannia gold coin, which they expected to make a major contribution to their sales and profits. However, they significantly overestimated the demand for it and, despite advertising and promotion expenditure of over £3·5 million, it produced a profit of only £100,000 on sales of £63–64 million in 1987–88. We therefore asked the Mint why they had embarked on this enterprise.
That seems a fair question. The answer is in the following paragraph:
We were told that it was a Ministerial decision taken in the early part of 1987".
In other words, this was some daft idea of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). It might have had a better chance of success if the right hon. Gentleman had not gone on to slap VAT on gold coins and if there had not been a fall in the price of gold which reduced the bullion market overnight. These are the people to whom we entrust the management of the economy!

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Since then, it has become clear that the statement that we received from the Department concerned was in error about VAT. VAT had changed some years before.

Mr. Brown: That spoils what was otherwise quite a good shot. Never mind, the principle remains true—the idea was daft. Better care should be taken in weighing up the commercial prospects of these ventures before embarking on them, regardless of when VAT was imposed.
The last report to which I want to refer is of particular sadness to me. In the last Parliament, I served my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) as his deputy in the Labour party's legal affairs team. That duty brought me to serve on the Committee on the Prosecution of Offences Bill which set up the Crown prosecution service. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will perhaps remember all that fairly well. I think that he was involved at some stage, although I cannot remember whether he was on the Committee.
The Crown prosecution service was set up in a bipartisan spirit. It was approved by both sides of the House. We all made speeches wishing it and the Bill well. Although there were questions we wanted to ask and points we wanted to explore with the Government, the Bill's passage was not unduly obstructed. However, the Opposition were worried about rates of pay for solicitors who were to work in the service. We felt that the Government had underestimated the costs of staffing and were underfunding the service. We expressed particular concern about the way in which the relationship between chief police officers and the Crown prosecution service would develop.
All those points have been picked up by the Public Accounts Committee. It saddens me that aspects that we thought would go wrong have gone wrong. The report states:
We are disturbed at the very high cost of employing agent lawyers, especially where their performance has been less satisfactory".
We hoped that staff of the Crown prosecution service would be wholly in-house and that it would not be necessary to employ agent lawyers, except in special circumstances.
The report continues:
We were concerned to learn that, despite the steps taken to establish effective liaison between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, consultation and feedback were still being hindered by inadequate communication and, in the view of the Crown Prosecution Service, the late delivery of files from the police.
It was always important for the functioning of the new Crown prosecution service that the service and the police helped each other and understood the new relationship that was supposed to exist between the two. Clearly, that has not worked out as well as the Government and the Opposition hoped.
The Public Accounts Committee continues:
We are disturbed at the large proportion of discontinued cases which were not dropped until the court hearing.
The cost of that must be substantial. Clearly, it is up to the Crown prosecution service, to the police and to the court authorities to co-operate to ensure that there is a substantial reduction of such cases. I wholeheartedly endorse that recommendation by the Committee, which also says:
We were disappointed to learn that the Crown Prosecution Service had failed to secure the improved standard of case preparation it was expected to achieve over previous prosecution arrangements.

Perhaps the most serious and worrying point in the report is when the Committee says that the estimates have proved to be far too low. It says:
Nevertheless, we are concerned that the estimates proved to be far too low and that the Service appears to be costing almost twice as much as the previous prosecution arrangements, with a staff requirement practically double the size originally envisaged. In these circumstances we find it surprising that, more than two and a half years after becoming operational, the service has not fully met the initial objectives set by the Government mainly because it still did not have enough staff.
The Public Accounts Committee is exploring a worrying point there.
The duty of replying on such matters in the House falls to the Attorney-General, although, of course, the Crown prosecution service is still administered from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I hope that heed is taken of the report. The whole House wishes the Crown prosecution service well, but we want our wishes to be put into effect and not undermined, as seems to be happening.
I want again to express our wholehearted gratitude to the Committee for the substantial time that it has put into examining these matters on our behalf. I reiterate our thanks to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for his leadership, and for the sense of direction and of unity of purpose with which he provides his fellow Committee members.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I join all those who have paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for the distinguished chairmanship that he has brought to the Committee over the past seven years. Several members of the Public Accounts Committee and others have said that the role of the Committee may never have been more important. I have no doubt that that owes a great deal to the objective and determined way in which the right hon. Gentleman conducts his business. The whole House owes him a debt of gratitude for the work that he leads in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the high turnover of members of the Public Accounts Committee—especially of Opposition Members—and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred to the high turnover of Financial Secretaries. He seems to have accounted for three so far in the course of the four debates in which he has taken part. I look forward to taking part in a great many more of these debates as Financial Secretary. I enjoyed this debate because it demonstrated how seriously the members of the Public Accounts Committee take their work and it emphasised the importance of that work.
There is one former member of the Public Accounts Committee whose absence tonight is conspicuous and tragic. I refer, of course, to our friend Ian Gow. I was proud to count him a friend and a colleague. He leaves a gap in our hearts that can never be filled.
My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) predicted—I do not know whether gloomily or otherwise—that this debate may be their valedictory occasion as members of the Public Accounts Committee speaking in such a debate. The House owes both of them a debt of gratitude for their work. They have been distinguished members of the Committee and have brought to it great


clarity of mind and expertise. I know that the Committee will miss that. I was going to say, "we". I believe that I am now a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that I may be forgiven for not yet having appeared at a sitting as I became a member of it only on Tuesday of this week. I believe that I have a respectable alibi.
All Ministers, particularly Treasury Ministers, are conscious of the need to ensure propriety and value for money in the spending of taxpayers' money. The Public Accounts Committee has an exceptionally important role to play in both those areas. In the area of propriety and regularity, it is rightly concerned to ensure that the funds that the House votes to the Executive are spent only for the purposes that the House has authorised and are properly accounted for.
On value for money, it has been a major objective of the Government since they came to power to improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of public spending. In that respect also, the Government and the Public Accounts Committee have common objectives. The financial management initiative launched in 1982 is a continuing programme to promote efficiency and value for money by placing responsibility as far as possible at the level where operations and activities are managed and delivered. It therefore seeks to provide managers with a framework of objectives of output and performance measures, cost information, training and expert advice. Within that framework, managers are responsible for making the best use of resources and achieving the greatest value for money.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred in particular to six reports and I shall deal first with Northern Ireland and the nursery and the microfilming contract. All who have spoken recognise that the Housing Executive carries out a substantial and successful housing programme, sometimes in exceptionally difficult circumstances. But the Committee's criticisms were clear and stark and have been accepted. Remedial steps have been taken to ensure that nothing similar happens in future. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was unusual for the Committee to express its astonishment. I concede that astonishment registers high on the Committee's Richter scale. If I may say so, the words were not misused. The Government accept that there were important lessons to be learnt from that episode and I assure the House and the Committee that they have been learnt.
The second report referred to by the right hon. Gentleman related to the financial problems at universities, particularly at University college, Cardiff. The circumstances that led to the Department of Education and Science's intervention in the affairs of University college, Cardiff, were exceptional. Mismanagement by senior college staff put the institution in severe financial difficulties with an increasingly great deficit. As the Committee's first report acknowledged, when the Department had incontrovertible evidence in late 1985 of those exceptional circumstances from the then University Grants Committee, decisive action to remedy that was instigated.
It became clear that the only route to effective survival was the merger, which I understand had been long mooted with the University of Wales Institute of Science and

Technology. That merger took place in 1989. It was supported by some extra funds, but subject to stringent conditions, to ensure a fresh start. Of the £11 million new funds, £4·4 million was in the form of a repayable grant to be repaid by the new institution using its best endeavours to sell surplus assets and by the recovery of certain other sums. The new institution has made a good start from difficult origins. To date, some £1 million of that £4·4 million loan has been repaid to the Exchequer.
Since the education reforms, monitoring has been undertaken by the Universities Funding Council and there have been several key changes. The lines of accountability have been clarified. The UFC has its own accounting officer and its relations with the universities are governed by financial memoranda. Universities are required to provide appropriate financial monitoring data and, in any case, now have a standard format for their accounts. The UFC has strengthened its financial expertise, including the establishment of an internal audit unit, to scrutinise all of those. In the unlikely event of another institution beginning to suffer the same kind of mismanagement, the UFC should be able to detect that quickly and act appropriately. However, under the Education Reform Act 1988, its powers of intervention are not unfettered. Parliament insisted that proper allowance should be made for the autonomy of universities.
I want now to consider the sixth interim report on the sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace. I have no doubt that the Government acted wholly in the national interest by conducting that sale. I also have no doubt that it was carried out in a correct, defensible and justifiable way.
The sale fulfilled our objective of privatising the company within the lifetime of the current Parliament. It was our aim to relieve the taxpayer of the liability represented by the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances, which at the end of March 1988 were estimated at £1·6 billion and which were set to increase substantially. It was our aim to achieve that sale on the best possible terms and to achieve a clean break that would protect from further risk the taxpayer who had, it is worth remembering, already contributed some £2·9 billion to Rover Group.
We also aimed to achieve privatisation without exposing Rover Group to the uncertainty to which it had proved so vulnerable in the past. All our objectives have been achieved and, most importantly, Rover Group is now flourishing in the private sector. It has committed £500 million of new capital investment. Its new range of models has been highly successful and, with the introduction of three-shift working at Longbridge, record productivity levels have been attained. The contrast with British Leyland's miserable and depressing history in the public sector could hardly be sharper.

Mr. Terry Davis: Is not it true that Rover Group was already making substantial profits when it was publicly owned?

Mr. Maude: It was making a very modest operating profit, but that took no account of the wider financial circumstances, which were still pretty dire.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred particularly to price and exclusivity. It is worth pointing out that Rover Group was sold for £150 million and one of the conditions of sale was the implementation


of the corporate plan involving £1·6 billion of new capital investment and the undertaking that no further public assistance would be given to the group.
Exclusive negotiating rights were therefore granted to British Aerospace and the reason for that exclusivity was perfectly clear. Competitive bidding would almost certainly have given rise to political controversy which, we must remember, had previously been extremely damaging to the commercial prospects of Rover Group. It would have undermined the realisable value of the business and put the broader objectives seriously at risk. The European Commission decided that £150 million was a reasonable purchase price for the company and that the granting of exclusive negotiating rights to British Aerospace had been justified. I have no doubt that the terms of sale represented the best that could realistically have been achieved.
When talking about clawback, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made a good point. He said that there is a difference between public and private money. I cannot remember his precise words, but I shall check on them because they expressed a good deal of truth. Broadly speaking, he said that one should not take risks with public money and that is precisely the point about the exclusivity. He went on to say, I think, that one should not take risks even if that means that one might receive slightly less as a result. That is the whole point about the exclusivity. We had been through the unhappy episode of a possible sale to Ford and General Motors, with all the uncertainty and the political controversy, which, if I may say so, was prompted to a large extent by Opposition Members, and which had caused serious damage to British Leyland as the group was then known. It was perfectly justifiable, in the interests of the taxpayer and of the company, to avoid such controversy being renewed.
Over recent years, the PAC has taken a close interest in the privatisation of royal ordnance factories. We welcome that interest. It is right that, when public companies are privatised, the Committee should consider whether a fair return has been obtained for the taxpayer. I particularly welcome the Committee's 13th report. Its considered conclusions about the sale provide a welcome corrective to the more sensational claims that appeared in the media.
The company was sold as a going concern after a wide-ranging and open bidding competition. We are confident that the price that we received was a true reflection of its market value. Not one of the major commercial companies involved in the bidding thought it worth paying more than that for the company with all its assets and liabilities.
I now refer to the 16th report on financial management in the national health service. Like management as a whole in the NHS, financial management is now focused on implementing the recent reforms. The Committee's observations about financial management in the NHS have been at the forefront of planning for the reformed NHS. The reforms will demand sharply improved financial management. That requirement has been a feature of all aspects of their implementation. An upgraded system of financial planning and monitoring is being put in place, supported by a substantial investment of time and effort in staff training.
A principal objective of the new systems is to provide the means to ensure that health authorities keep in financial balance in the new competitive environment. An NHS that has its finances in balance will not seek to fund its activities at the expense of creditors. The monitoring of

efficiency savings is part of the financial monitoring package. An objective of the reforms is to achieve better value for money. Continued pursuit and achievement of efficiency savings will play an important part in securing that goal.
Good financial management in the NHS requires the commitment of all managers from the management executive down, a clear expression from the top of the priority of such financial management, translation of that commitment and priority into systems that will support management in that task, and the recruitment, retention and training of suitable staff to operate the systems.

Mr. Michael Morris: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the recommendations is the poignant point that the health service has previously been a bad payer, particularly in relation to small businesses. May we have an assurance that, in respect of the Treasury, in the difficult financial climate at the moment, when a level playing field is supposed to be achieved, it will not be to the disadvantage of suppliers to the health service?

Mr. Maude: We should certainly expect it not to be such a problem in future.
I now refer to the value of the land and concern about whether the NHS knew of the value of its estate. One of the reforms to be introduced from April next year is capital charges intended to make the NHS take account of the value of its capital assets. As part of the preparation for the introduction of capital charges, all district health authorities have had to draw up asset registers recording the value of their land and other capital assets. The land has been valued by district valuers.
I now refer to the last report—the 31st report—on road and bridge construction. I first deal with the Chairman's point about delay in the most recent Treasury minute. It was laid before the House, and copies were provided for members of the Committee on Monday of this week, on the first day after the recess. As a newcomer, I understand that it is the long-standing practice not to issue Treasury minutes responding to Committee reports during the recess. I am sorry if the rather earlier timing of the debate after the recess has caused a difficulty.
There was criticism of maintenance being carried out earlier than forecast at the time of construction. There are three important general points to make about this premature maintenance. Premature maintenance costs are very small in relation to the cost of construction, and simply spending more money on the construction does not necessarily avoid premature maintenance.
Civil engineering, of course, inevitably involves risks. The bulk of premature maintenance referred to in the report was caused by factors that were unforseeable or uncertain at the time of construction. We do not knowingly or avoidably build defective roads and bridges.
A certain amount of action was taken in any event before the PAC report was published. Standards, specifications, materials and techniques were kept under constant review and improvements were regularly introduced when justified. A good deal of action has been taken since the publication of the report, including the introduction of an improved computerised reporting system for all defects and all premature maintenance, concentrating on the few cases where there is substantial evidence of significant failure, by consulting engineers or contractors to obtain all costs that are legally recoverable.
An independent consultant was appointed to carry out a wide-ranging review of the means of redress of poor supervision and workmanship, including the use of sanctions.
Certainly problems have arisen after constructing some sections of modern trunk roads and bridges, but many of the problems identified by the Committee will not recur. We must not overlook the fact that maintenance of many roads and bridges is completely trouble-free. Government constantly strive to secure better value from the huge current investment in the roads programme. To meet the demands of modern traffic flows, we work at the frontier of engineering knowledge. New materials and techniques normally still offer significant net benefits, even after allowing for premature maintenance.
This has been a useful debate in focusing attention on the valuable work of the PAC. I should like to pay a final tribute to the work of the Committee and to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the National Audit Office for its essential support. I thank all members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate and the two gallant hon. Members who are not members of the Committee but who have also made valuable speeches.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 34th to 41st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1988–89, of the 1st to 32nd Reports of Session 1989–90, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on those Reports (Cm. 963, 964, 1057, 1101, 1150, 1235 and 1247) with particular reference to the following Reports:

1988–89
Thirty-sixth, Further matters relating to Northern Ireland;

1989–90
First, Financial problems at universities;
Sixth, Sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace plc;
Thirteenth, Ministry of Defence: Further examination of the Sale of Royal Ordnance plc;
Sixteenth, Financial Management in the National Health Service;
Thirty-first, Quality control of road and bridge construction.

Mecca Tunnel Disaster

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I wish to raise in this brief Adjournment debate a subject which is probably the saddest constituency case that I have raised in my 17 years' membership of the House.
On 2 July there was a widely reported disaster at Mecca involving religious pilgrims in a pedestrian tunnel. The first reports that I saw—I have since checked them—indicated that up to 100 people had died, but this figure climbed within a day to well over 1,400.
King Fahd of Saudi Arabia caused additional news coverage of the disaster by his remark that the disaster was "God's will" and
had the victims not died in the tunnel they would have died elsewhere at the same predestined moment".
The Saudi authorities were quoted on 3 July as saying, "Everything is under control". That statement can be taken several ways, but that is not the purpose of this debate and neither can I go into the reasons for the disaster. What I want to raise is the involvement of British citizens as victims—injured or missing—in the disaster. Given the nature of the pilgrimage, it is clear that other nationalities must likewise be affected.
On the evening of 20 September, I was contacted by my constituent, 17-year-old Zubia Waheed, on behalf of her family. The following day I met Zubia and learned that she and her five brothers and sisters aged between four and 13 had not heard from their mother and father since 2 July. Their parents are British citizens, Mr. Abdul Whaid Khan and his wife, Mrs. Munawar Sultana. The couple had arrived for the pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia on 19 June and were due back home on 23 July. They had telephoned home virtually every day since their arrival to make sure that things were okay. However, since 2 July their names have not appeared on any list of the dead or injured.
They have not been located in any of the hospitals. Furthermore, they have not been identified or located by friends and relatives from photographs taken of the victims. Relatives of the family have travelled from Pakistan to check the photographs in Saudi Arabia because friends of the family living in the United Kingdom have been refused visas to visit Saudi Arabia to check for themselves.
The only figure that I have seen for the number of victims is 1,426 but more than 3,500 photographs of victims have been checked to try to trace the couple. I understand that the counting stopped at 3,500. There were still more photographs to count, although all the photographs had been checked. Last Friday I was given a similar figure for the number of victims by a friend in Birmingham. He was the leader of a group of pilgrims in Saudi Arabia at the same time. He told me that it was common knowledge that over 3,000 people died in the tunnel disaster.
I have met my young constituent Zubia on three occasions. She is a credit to her parents and to the youth of this country—a view shared by every member of the statutory authorities that have come into contact with the young lady in recent weeks. She has given up her course at


the local college to look after the other children. But they all, including Zubia, have two simple questions—"Where are mum and dad? When are they coming back?"
Within an hour of my first meeting with the family I telephoned the Foreign Office. Like many people, I remember the press reports of the disaster in July. After that there was nothing at all. There was no reason to suppose that British citizens had been involved. There had been no press reports and no investigations. When I telephoned the Foreign Office and said who I was and that I was telephoning about the Mecca tunnel disaster, Jacqueline Walder of the consular section told me who I was phoning about. She told me the names of my constituents before I gave them. That indicated clearly to me that the Foreign Office staff in London were on top of the matter. The issue was clearly on the desk. Obviously, the family and friends of my constituents had been in contact with the Foreign Office before approaching me in September. That must be contrasted with the attitude of the Saudi Arabian authorities, particularly the Saudi embassy in London. It was asked by The Independent newspaper on 5 October about the disaster and the questions that obviously flow about the dead and injured were put to it. The response from the press office of the Saudi embassy was
God, what's brought this back?
I believe, as would anyone who read the article, that the matter should never have gone away in the first place. It is clear that there are disputes about the number of victims and that people cannot be accounted for and are missing.
I have subsequently discovered that several other British citizens were involved in the disaster. I presume that the Minister will give us the latest available figures. I have spoken to people in other parts of the country. I spoke at the weekend to Mrs. Shamin, of Nelson in Lancashire, whose husband Mr. Nadir Ali Khan, a British citizen, also disappeared on 2 July without trace. She was with her husband on the pilgrimage but she was not with him that day because her health is not good. She remained behind for several weeks in Saudi Arabia to search for her husband. She also, bless her, came across friends of my constituents and arranged for photographs of Zubia's parents to be sent out to her so that she could look among the photographs when she was searching for her husband—also to no avail.
I contacted the Saudi embassy in London on Monday morning to inform it as a matter of courtesy that I intended to raise this issue tonight. In my letter, I gave an indication of the type of questions that I expected the Minister to be able to answer. What was the final death toll? Given that there were between 4,000 and 5,000 people in the tunnel and having seen the photographs, it is inconceivable that all the injured survived, but no figure beyond the first published has ever been given. How many of the dead and injured were British citizens? Above all, why are some British citizens totally unaccounted for? I told the embassy that Zubia and her brothers and sisters had received no help from the Saudi Government and that they had convinced themselves that their parents are alive.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Rooker: Zubia and her brothers are convinced that their parents are alive and held in some kind of camp or in slavery. In recent months they have spent a small fortune telephoning the authorities in Saudi Arabia.
The fears of Zubia and her brothers are backed up by a known case of another citizen of Birmingham who went on a pilgrimage last year but could not get back to this country until this year. A woman in another part of Birmingham—not in my constituency—was forced to skivvy in a hotel for several months to make ends meet. The local community in Birmingham knows about such cases and thus there are great fears when people go missing.
I told the ambassador that I am not a diplomat but that my job is to push the case of my constituent as hard as I can so that the Foreign Office tells the Saudi Government that this problem must be settled. I told the ambassador that the lack of information from his Government is bound to give rise to fears in this country that Saudis believe that human life is cheap—one might say too cheap to count.
The Saudi Government have contributed to the lack of reporting by the media of the consequences of the disaster, its aftermath and its effect on the families because they do not allow journalists in to make inquiries. Journalists who asked questions after the disaster were thrown out.
People of Birmingham who visit Saudi Arabia regularly are of the opinion that the Saudi Government are incompetent and arrogant when dealing with visitors. It is certain that no Saudi Member of Parliament will raise this matter in the Saudi Parliament.
We also need to know what inquiries and investigations have taken place inside Saudi Arabia. Where were the dead and injured taken? Has the Foreign Office sent any formal notes to the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Has the ambassador in London been called to the Foreign Office to try to explain why British citizens are unaccounted for? It is also reasonable to ask whether our Government have had any contact with any other Governments whose citizens were similarly affected. The nature of the pilgrimages means that millions visit the holy places and, by and large, they are not citizens of Saudi Arabia, but come from all over the world.
It is now virtually on record that British citizens died in the disaster. Their families grieve and we grieve with them, but other British citizens have disappeared without trace. What are their families supposed to do? What of the future? What about documentation and compensation? The facts about what happenened to those citizens are crucial to their relatives so that they are able to live in the future.
Many other natural practical questions come to mind about the circumstances of the six children in my constituency. I do not want to raise the questions in public, but I put on record my grateful thanks for the speed and care with which the statutory authorities responded once alerted to the situation.
I cannot accept that constituents of mine and of other hon. Members—I am referring to British citizens—can simply disappear in an allied and friendly country such as that. The tunnel disaster of July 2 occurred a clear month before the invasion of Kuwait. While the invasion has, of course, put extra pressure on Government arrangements there, that is no excuse for inaction, delay and lack of response.
I appreciate—one could not have been in public life and a Member of the House for nearly 17 years without appreciating—that Britain gives the Saudi Government the kid glove treatment on many issues. But I warn that grave offence will be caused to, and taken by, British citizens if we do not receive information and knowledge about what happened to our citizens in that country.
I hope that the Foreign Office has made that abundantly clear to the Saudi authorities. British citizens carrying British passports rely when the chips are down on those famous words on the inside cover of the passport. If those words are to have any meaning, the Saudi Government must realise that the issue will not go away until we know what has happened to the British citizens involved.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I wish at the outset to thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for raising the question of the tragic incident at Mecca on 2 July and express, through him, my sympathy with the families of his two constituents who failed to return from this year's Haj but about whom there is still no information, and to the family of one other British pilgrim who are in the same situation. I can well understand how they feel.
I wish also to express my deep sympathy to the families of the British pilgrims who so tragically died, and to those who were injured in the disaster in the Mowaisem tunnel. We were all stunned by the news of this terrible disaster, affecting so many pilgrims who were carrying out an act of the highest religious devotion.
Her Majesty the Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately sent messages of condolence to His Majesty King Fand. That was before we knew of any British victims. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent a similar message to the Saudi Foreign Minister, His Royal Highness Prince Saud al Faisal. We did not know at that stage whether any British pilgrims had been involved.
The disaster struck when the pilgrims were returning from Muzdalifa to Mina, close outside the city of Mecca, on the day of sacrifice, the Eid al Adha. This journey takes pilgrims through the Mowaisem tunnel.
From what we learned from the Saudi authorities, a crowd built up just before 8 o'clock on the morning of 2 July in the area of the tunnel. The 600-metre tunnel, opened in 1979, had previously coped well enough with two-way crowd movements, but, tragically, the volume of traffic proved too much on this occasion.
Apparently, two major waves of people going in opposite directions converged just inside the western mouth of the tunnel. This led to a stampede and the death of many pilgrims. Many were suffocated or trampled in the crush. Some died when they were forced off the raised walkway at the tunnel's western approach. The Saudi authorities have put the total number of deaths at 1,426. Unofficial estimates put the death toll much higher.
I understand that the Saudi authorities have begun an inquiry to determine the causes of the tragedy. They have a difficult task. In the meantime, it would be wrong, indeed impossible, for me to try to anticipate their findings.
The numbers of pilgrims visiting Mecca for the Haj are of course very great indeed. Unofficial sources put the number of pilgrims at this year's Haj at between 1 and 2 million, half from overseas. The Haj authorities give the figure for British pilgrims as about 5,700, based on the number of United Kingdom passports; but many of the British pilgrims are dual nationals, and choose to travel to the holy places on their other passports. Our best estimate of the number of British pilgrims is about 10,000 people.
It may be helpful if I give the House an account of the action taken by our posts in Saudi Arabia in response to this tragic disaster. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Perry Barr for his words about the activities and support of the consular section of the Foreign Office. However, I should like to take the opportunity to rebut recent suggestions in the press of official indifference, and to tackle the implication that the Government are unconcerned about the fate of British Moslems killed in Mecca. I can refute that allegation totally.
As soon as we learned of the disaster on the afternoon of 2 July, before we had any knowledge of British casualties, the consulate in Jeddah tried to find out from the Saudi authorities and others exactly what had happened. Non-Moslems are not allowed into Mecca, so we were unable to send a United Kingdom-based member of staff; none the less, on the following day, 3 July, we sent the pro-consul—who is a Kenyan Moslem—to Mecca to gather first-hand information on the tragedy.
During his visits to Mecca in the days immediately following the tragedy, the pro-consul visited hospitals to look for United Kingdom pilgrims who might be injured. He made contact in Mecca with British pilgrim tour leaders, and was also in touch with the Saudi Haj Ministry. He had no reports of British deaths or injuries until 4 July, when he was able to confirm one death. A further six British deaths were confirmed on 5 July.
In the succeeding days, further casualties and deaths were reported and confirmed. We kept in close contact with the Haj Ministry. The pro-consul visited Mecca again on 11 July; in fact, he visited Mecca almost daily during the first fortnight of July.
Our ambassador in Riyadh subsequently called on the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' consular department and on the Deputy Minister of the Interior. The consulate-general in Jeddah remained in constant touch with both the European section of the Haj Ministry and the Indian and Pakistan sections in an effort to track down dual passport holders. Follow-up action with the Saudi Haj Ministry and with hospital authorities continued during August and September.
There were of course many telephone calls from the public to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to our posts in Saudi Arabia. The hon. Member for Perry Barr has generously paid tribute to the service provided by our consular department, which kept in regular touch with relatives in the United Kingdom in the weeks succeeding the tragedy.
The British casualty figures now stand at 20 dead, and a further 14 British pilgrims were injured and treated in well equipped hospitals in Mecca; all, I am happy to say, have now been released.
Our posts in Riyadh and Jeddah are continuing, and will continue, to press the Haj authorities for more details. They have built up regular personal contacts with the Saudi officials involved: in our experience, that is the key to successful handling of a problem such as this. Most


recently, the consul in Riyadh delivered personally a formal note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting urgent assistance in tracing the British citizens still missing. The Saudi authorities promised speedy action; we will press them on that.
As to compensation, which the hon. Member for Perry Barr mentioned, that is, of course, a matter for the Saudi authorities. However, the consulate general in Jeddah is pressing to establish where matters stand.
Until recently, six British pilgrims were unaccounted for. That number is now reduced to three. It is, of course, regrettable that any of the missing should remain unidentified, despite the best endeavours of our consular staff, who have pressed the Saudi authorities on every possible occasion, but we must recognise that the Saudi authorities have been working in very difficult conditions. They have been having to try to identify those buried by comparing photographs taken of the bodies before burial with those in the victims' passports.
This has been a difficult and lengthy task—not least because of the numbers involved. What is more, the pilgrims would have handed in their own passports to the Haj authorities, so would not have been carrying them at the time of the disaster. I have already mentioned the further complication that some British pilgrims have dual nationality and were travelling on other passports.
While there has been criticism of the way in which the Saudi authorities handled the disaster, we have also had reports from relatives that they were very helpful to those who were attempting to identify the bodies of their kin.
In conclusion, while I fully understand and share the concern of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I must recall the very large number of victims of this disaster and the enormous difficulty the Saudis are having in identifying them. For our part, we are dependent on the Saudi authorities for information.
None of this, however, detracts from the pain which the relatives of those who are still unidentified must feel. The Government fully understand their wish to be able to satisfy themselves about this tragedy, so we shall continue to press the Saudi authorities, through the consulate-general in Jeddah and the embassy in Riyadh, and we shall, of course, pass on at once any information they receive to the relatives in this country. The Saudis have assured us that they will grant visas and assist families who wish to continue searching for information in Mecca themselves, and we will be glad to assist those applying for visas if necessary. Our consular staff in Jeddah will of course do everything possible to help, too.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Ten o'clock.